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 Amendment
The preliminary amendments filed 12/03/2024 have been entered. Claims 16-20 have been added. Claims 1-20 are now pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the plurality of the charged particle beams”, however, the claim previously recites ‘a plurality of charged particle beams’ and ‘the plurality of charged particle beams’; While either convention is acceptable alone, one convention should be chosen and maintained throughout the claims, to avoid potential clarity issues; Examiner suggests maintaining the previously recited ‘the plurality of charged particle beams’ convention for simplicity;
Claim 6 recites “the charged particle-optical elements” in the final line of the claim, however, the aforementioned ‘voltage supply’ is only required to be electrically connected to at least one of the charged particle-optical elements, and accordingly, the requirement of the controller to control the potential applied by the voltage supply to the charge particle-optical elements does not make sense (i.e., if the voltage source is connected to only a single such element); Nevertheless, Examiner believes the limitation is definite in context, but should read ‘the at least one of the charged particle-optical elements’;
Claim 20 recites “wherein the isolating spacer defining a spacing aperture”, which is grammatically inconsistent with the previous wording, and should read ‘wherein the isolating spacer defines a spacing aperture’.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 and 20 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 1 recites “…a beam path comprising the plurality of [[the]] charged particle beams…”, however, it is unclear based on the phrasing and punctuation what element(s) this is intended to limit, namely, the charged particle-optical assembly or each of the upbeam and downbeam charged particle-optical elements. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…and each further comprising a beam path comprising the plurality of charged particle beams…’.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the charged particle-optical assembly is a charged particle-optical lens assembly”. This appears to be non-limiting intended use, as it does not particularly structurally or functionally limit any of the elements of the assembly, and rather limits how such elements should be applied. However, such intended use is non-limiting under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of such an apparatus claim. Accordingly, it is unclear how such limitations are intended to further limit the apparatus. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as not further limiting the claim. See 112(d) portion below.
Claim 20 recites “…each comprising a plate having one or more apertures around a beam path of the one or more charged particle beams…”, which is unclear because the required correspondence of elements is not clear. The plate is required to have one or more apertures around a beam path, but it is not clear whether each aperture is required to be around a single beam path for each of the one or more beams, around a beam path for each respective of the one or more beams, and whether each of the one or more apertures is each required to be around a same beam path or different beam paths. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…each comprising a plate having one or more apertures, each aperture around a beam path of a respective charged particle beam of the one or more charged particle beams…’.
Claim 20 recites “applying a potential difference across…”, followed by “changing the potential difference so that…”, followed by “electrically isolating, using…”, wherein it is clear that the changing the potential difference must occur in order after applying a potential difference. While not explicitly stated as requiring the electrically isolating after these steps, the claim does not preclude such an ordering, and is thus within the scope of the claim. However, it is unclear how the electrically isolating step can occur after these steps. It would appear, based on Applicant’s disclosure, that the electrically isolating would need to occur prior to applying a potential difference and changing the potential difference, else such steps could not be properly performed. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as explicitly requiring the electrically isolating step prior to the applying a potential difference step.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 14 does not further limit claim 1. Claim 14 recites “wherein the charged particle-optical assembly is a charged particle-optical lens assembly”. This does not particularly structurally or functionally limit any of the elements of the assembly, and rather limits how such elements should be applied (i.e., to be used as a lens). However, such intended use is non-limiting under the BRI of an apparatus claim, as the assembly required by claim 1 is inherently capable of use as a lens.
Accordingly, the claim does not further limit the assembly of claim 1, and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d).
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-10, 12-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(a) as being anticipated by Tsunoda (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20120319001 A1).
Examiner notes that Tsunoda is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 12/030/2024.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Tsunoda teaches a charged particle-optical assembly (See Figs. 1-7; Abstract; [0002]) configured to manipulate a plurality of charged particle beams (See Fig. 5; Abstract; [0002]), the charged particle-optical assembly comprising:
an upbeam charged particle-optical element and a downbeam charged particle-optical element each comprising a plate having a plurality of apertures around one or more of the plurality of charged particle beams, a beam path comprising the plurality of the charged particle beams (See Figs. 1-7, and in particular 5 for plurality of apertures in plates, and 1-4, 6-7 for lens arrangements having upstream and downstream elements, i.e., items 1, 2; [0019]-[0024]; [0049]-[0059]; See also: Similar description for other lens configuration figures, i.e., Figs. 3-4, 6-7); and
an isolating spacer configured to electrically isolate the upbeam charged particle- optical element and the downbeam charged particle-optical element from each other, the isolating spacer defining a spacer aperture around the beam path of the one or more charged particle beams (See Figs. 1-4, 6-7, items 3, having aperture around beam path of respective particle beam; [0019]-[0024]; Examiner notes that the disclosed material is sufficient to electrically isolate the surrounding elements 1 and 2, and is explicitly disclosed as insulating elements 1 and 2 from one another; See also: Similar description for other lens configuration figures, i.e., Figs. 3-4, 6-7),
wherein the isolating spacer comprises an upbeam portion adjacent to the upbeam charged particle-optical element (See Figs. 1-4, 6-7, items 3, arbitrary portion near item 1; [0019]-[0024]; See also: Similar description for other lens configuration figures, i.e., Figs. 3-4, 6-7), a downbeam portion adjacent to the downbeam charged particle-optical element (See Figs. 1-4, 6-7, items 3, arbitrary portion near item 2; [0019]-[0024]; See also: Similar description for other lens configuration figures, i.e., Figs. 3-4, 6-7) and an intermediate portion between the upbeam portion and the downbeam portion (See Figs. 1-4, 6-7, items 3, arbitrary central portion between portions close to items 1 and 2; [0019]-[0024]; See also: Similar description for other lens configuration figures, i.e., Figs. 3-4, 6-7), wherein the upbeam portion and the downbeam portion protrude relative to the intermediate portion such that the spacer aperture has an increased dimension in a direction across the beam path at the intermediate portion compared to at the upbeam portion and the downbeam portion (See Figs. 7, wherein various groupings of portions of item 3 include two portions protruding surrounding an intermediate portion, the two portions being ‘upbeam’, ‘downbeam’, and ‘adjacent to’ their respective elements as required above; [0036]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Tsunoda teaches the charged particle-optical assembly of claim 1.
Tsunoda further teaches wherein the isolating spacer is shaped such that the spacer aperture has a similar dimension in the direction across the beam path at the upbeam portion and at the downbeam portion (See Figs. 7, item 3, having protruding portions having apertures therebetween with a similar dimension in the direction across the beam path; [0036]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Tsunoda teaches the charged particle-optical assembly of claim 1.
Tsunoda further teaches wherein the isolating spacer is shaped to be symmetrical about a plane across the beam path (See Figs. 1-7, showing item 3 being symmetrical about various planes across the beam path; [0019]-[0024]; See also: Similar description for other lens configuration figures, i.e., Figs. 3-4, 6-7, [0029], [0063]).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Tsunoda teaches the charged particle-optical assembly of claim 3.
Tsunoda further teaches wherein the plane is through the intermediate portion (See Figs. 1-7, showing item 3 being symmetrical about plane across the beam path through the intermediate portion; [0019]-[0024]; See also: Similar description for other lens configuration figures, i.e., Figs. 3-4, 6-7, [0029], [0063]).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Tsunoda teaches the charged particle-optical assembly of claim 1.
Tsunoda further teaches wherein the isolating spacer is shaped such that when a potential difference is applied across the charged particle-optical elements, an electric potential at a protruding corner of the upbeam portion and/or the downbeam portion at which the dimension of the spacer aperture changes is a local extremum (See Figs. 7, item 3, having protruding portions having corners facing one another; [0036]-[0044]; Under the BRI, the requirements on the assembly are the physical structure necessary to achieve such a potential arrangement, which is understood as the upbeam and downbeam portions having protruding corners, as there does not appear to be any other physical requirement on the structure to achieve such a local extremum; Examiner notes that the corners of the protruding portions of item 3 would naturally achieve an electric potential having a local extremum were a potential different applied across items 1 and 2, in the arrangement disclosed by Tsunoda).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Tsunoda teaches the charged particle-optical assembly of claim 5.
Tsunoda further teaches wherein the charged particle-optical assembly comprises:
a voltage supply electrically connected to at least one of the charged particle-optical elements (See Figs. 1-7, in particular Fig. 5, items 101, 105, 132; [0009]; [0019]-[0024]; [0055]-[0058]; Examiner notes that while ‘a voltage supply’ is not explicitly disclosed, there is inherent disclosure in the cited portions, at least via disclosure of the application of voltages to elements 1 and 2, and the control of 132 (or 119, 126, 130) via items 105 and 101; See also: Similar description for other lens configuration figures, i.e., Figs. 3-4, 6-7); and
a controller configured to control a potential difference applied by the voltage supply across the charged particle-optical elements (See Figs. 1-7, in particular Fig. 5, items 101, 105, 132; [0009]; [0019]-[0024]; [0055]-[0058]; Examiner notes that while ‘a voltage supply’ is not explicitly disclosed, there is inherent disclosure in the cited portions, at least via disclosure of the application of voltages to elements 1 and 2, and the control of 132 (or 119, 126, 130) via items 105 and 101; See also: Similar description for other lens configuration figures, i.e., Figs. 3-4, 6-7).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Tsunoda teaches the charged particle-optical assembly of claim 1.
Tsunoda further teaches wherein the isolating spacer is shaped such that there is a step change in the dimension of the spacer aperture in the direction across the beam path between the intermediate portion and the upbeam portion and/or the downbeam portion (See Figs. 7, item 3, being shaped such that there is a step change in the dimension of the spacer aperture in the direction across the beam path between the portion between the protruding portions and the protruding portions; [0036]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Tsunoda teaches the charged particle-optical assembly of claim 7.
Tsunoda further teaches wherein the step change in dimension corresponds to a protruding corner of the upbeam portion and/or the downbeam portion respectively (See Figs. 7, item 3, being shaped such that the step change in the dimension of the spacer aperture in the direction across the beam path between the portion between the protruding portions and the protruding portions, and the step change corresponds to a protruding corner of the respective upbeam and downbeam portions; [0036]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Tsunoda teaches the charged particle-optical assembly of claim 1.
Tsunoda further teaches wherein the isolating spacer is a single piece of dielectric (See Figs. 1-7, and in particular Fig. 7B; Abstract; [0008]; [0019]-[0024]; [0073]).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Tsunoda teaches the charged particle-optical assembly of claim 1.
Tsunoda further teaches wherein the isolating spacer comprises two or more pieces of dielectric fixed together (See Figs. 7; [0036]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Tsunoda teaches the charged particle-optical assembly of claim 10.
Tsunoda further teaches wherein at least one of the pieces of dielectric has a uniform cross section in a direction parallel to the beam path (See Fig. 7D, items 3A and 3B each having a uniform cross section in a direction parallel to the beam path, e.g., on the left side of the figure).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Tsunoda teaches the charged particle-optical assembly of claim 12.
Tsunoda further teaches wherein each of the pieces of dielectric has a uniform cross section in a direction parallel to the beam path (See Fig. 7D, items 3A and 3B each having a uniform cross section in a direction parallel to the beam path, e.g., on the left side of the figure).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Tsunoda teaches the charged particle-optical assembly of claim 1, wherein the charged particle-optical assembly is a charged particle-optical lens assembly (See above 35 U.S.C. 112(b) interpretation; For completeness: Examiner notes that the above cited portions of Tsunoda explicitly recite the assembly therein being a lens assembly).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Tsunoda teaches the charged particle-optical assembly of claim 14.
Tsunoda further teaches wherein the charged particle-optical lens assembly comprises an objective lens assembly (See Figs. 1-7, in particular Fig. 5; [0055]-[0056]).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Tsunoda teaches the charged particle-optical assembly of claim 1.
Tsunoda further teaches further comprising, for each charged particle optical element, an electrical connection configured to connect the charged particle-optical element to an electrical supply (See Figs. 1-7, in particular Fig. 5, items 101, 105, 132; [0009]; [0019]-[0024]; [0055]-[0058]; Examiner notes that while ‘an electrical connection’ for each of items 1 and 2 and ‘an electrical supply’ is not explicitly disclosed, there is inherent disclosure in the cited portions, at least via disclosure of the application of voltages to elements 1 and 2, and connectivity to items 105 and 101, and the control of 132 (or 119, 126, 130) via items 105 and 101; See also: Similar description for other lens configuration figures, i.e., Figs. 3-4, 6-7).
Regarding claim 19, Tsunoda teaches an isolating spacer ([0021]) for a charged particle-optical assembly for manipulating one or more charged particle beams between an upbeam charged particle-optical element and a downbeam charged particle-optical element that are controllable to have inverting polarity with respect to each other (Interpreted under the BRI as non-limiting intended use, as being ‘for’ the particle-optical assembly ‘for manipulating’ charged particle-optical elements does not change the structure/functionality required of the spacer itself, nor are these elements part of the spacer), the isolating spacer configured to electrically isolate the upbeam charged particle-optical element and the downbeam charged particle-optical element from each other (Interpreted under the BRI as being capable of electrically isolating such elements, as the claim is directed toward the spacer itself; See Figs. 1-7, item 3; [0019]-[0024]), the isolating spacer defining a spacer aperture around a beam path of one or more charged particle beams (Interpreted under the BRI as ‘defining a spacer aperture capable of being disposed around a beam path…’; See Figs. 1-7, item 3, having an aperture therein around a beam path of one or more charged particle beams, and thus inherently capable of such positioning; [0019]-[0024]), the isolating spacer comprises:
an upbeam portion configured to be adjacent to an upbeam charged particle-optical element (Interpreted under the BRI as requiring such a portion as being capable of being positioned adjacent to such an element, as the element is not a part of the spacer itself; See Figs. 1-7, item 3, having an upper portion, adjacent to a charged particle-optical element, and thus inherently capable of such positioning);
a downbeam portion configured to be adjacent to a downbeam charged particle-optical element (Interpreted under the BRI as requiring such a portion as being capable of being positioned adjacent to such an element, as the element is not a part of the spacer itself; See Figs. 1-7, item 3, having a lower portion, adjacent to a charged particle-optical element, and thus inherently capable of such positioning); and
an intermediate portion between the upbeam portion and the downbeam portion (See Figs. 1-7, item 3, having an intermediate portion between the upper and lower portions),
wherein the upbeam portion and the downbeam portion protrude relative to the intermediate portion such that the spacer aperture has an increased dimension in a direction across the beam path at the intermediate portion compared to at the upbeam portion and the downbeam portion (See Figs. 7, wherein various groupings of portions of item 3 include two portions protruding surrounding an intermediate portion, the two portions being ‘upbeam’, ‘downbeam’, and ‘adjacent to’ their respective elements as required above; [0036]-[0044]).
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 11, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunoda (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20120319001 A1).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Tsunoda teaches the charged particle-optical assembly of claim 10.
Tsunoda does not explicitly teach wherein the pieces of dielectric have substantially a same thickness as each other.
However, Tsunoda teaches constructing the insulating spacer of plural pieces bonded together (i.e., the technique), and teaches forming the insulating spacer of distinct portions (i.e., protrusions of both rectangular and triangular shapes), in the previously cited portions.
One of ordinary skill in the relevant art of charged particle-optical arrangements would have an advanced degree in a physical science/engineering, or equivalent experience, and thus would have a relatively high level of ordinary skill/knowledge.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art could readily adjust the size of the pieces of the dielectric forming the insulating spacer according to the needs of a particular application, according to convenience (e.g., in manufacture/assembly), and/or according to economic considerations (i.e., differing cost/time cost/maintenance cost of such morphologies), and using only ordinary skill/knowledge/techniques. In particular, one of ordinary skill in the art could readily form pieces of a dielectric forming a spacer from equal thickness pieces.
Furthermore, in Tsunoda (see Fig. 7B), the intermediate portion(s) are of similar thickness to the protruding portions, and thus, the only difference between the disclosure of Tsunoda and the requirement of the claim is that the different portions of item 3 in Fig. 7B of Tsunoda are integrally formed, while the claim requires being formed of plural elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsunoda to achieve wherein the pieces of dielectric have substantially a same thickness as each other, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Doing so would allow one to form the differing portions of elements 3 in Fig. 7B in a similar manner to the elements 3A and 3B in Fig. 7D, which would amount to applying a known technique of Tsunoda, in order to achieve predictable results, as the isolating spacer would function identically.
Regarding claim 16, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Tsunoda, as modified, teaches the charged particle-optical assembly of claim 11.
Tsunoda, as modified, further teaches wherein the pieces of dielectric have substantially a same shape as each other (Examiner notes that in the modification of Fig. 7B having the intermediate and protruding portions formed of separate elements, the pieces would have substantially a same shape, and thus, the modified embodiment is understood as reading on the limitation).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Tsunoda teaches a method for controlling a charged particle-optical assembly to manipulate one or more charged particle beams (See Figs. 1-7; [0019]-[0024]; [0045]-[0060]), the method comprising:
applying a potential difference across an upbeam charged particle-optical element and a downbeam charged particle-optical element (See Figs. 1-7; [0019]-[0024]; [0045]-[0060]) each comprising a plate having one or more apertures around a beam path of the one or more charged particle beams (See Figs. 1-7, and in particular 5 for plurality of apertures in plates, and 1-4, 6-7 for lens arrangements having upstream and downstream elements, i.e., items 1, 2; [0019]-[0024]; [0049]-[0059]; See also: Similar description for other lens configuration figures, i.e., Figs. 3-4, 6-7);
electrically isolating, using an isolating spacer, the upbeam charged particle-optical element and the downbeam charged particle-optical element from each other (See Figs. 1-7, item 3 between items 1 and 2; [0019]-[0024]; Examiner notes that the disclosed material is sufficient to electrically isolate the surrounding elements 1 and 2, and is explicitly disclosed as insulating elements 1 and 2 from one another; See also: Similar description for other lens configuration figures, i.e., Figs. 3-4, 6-7),
wherein the isolating spacer defining a spacer aperture around the beam path of the one or more charged particle beams (See Figs. 1-4, 6-7, items 3, having aperture around beam path of respective particle beam; [0019]-[0024]; See also: Similar description for other lens configuration figures, i.e., Figs. 3-4, 6-7), and
wherein the isolating spacer comprises an upbeam portion adjacent to the upbeam charged particle-optical element (See Figs. 1-4, 6-7, items 3, arbitrary portion near item 1; [0019]-[0024]; See also: Similar description for other lens configuration figures, i.e., Figs. 3-4, 6-7), a downbeam portion adjacent to the downbeam charged particle-optical element (See Figs. 1-4, 6-7, items 3, arbitrary portion near item 2; [0019]-[0024]; See also: Similar description for other lens configuration figures, i.e., Figs. 3-4, 6-7) and an intermediate portion between the upbeam portion and the downbeam portion (See Figs. 1-4, 6-7, items 3, arbitrary central portion between portions close to items 1 and 2; [0019]-[0024]; See also: Similar description for other lens configuration figures, i.e., Figs. 3-4, 6-7), wherein the upbeam portion and the downbeam portion protrude relative to the intermediate portion such that the spacer aperture has an increased dimension in a direction across the beam path at the intermediate portion compared to at the upbeam portion and the downbeam portion (See Figs. 7, wherein various groupings of portions of item 3 include two portions protruding surrounding an intermediate portion, the two portions being ‘upbeam’, ‘downbeam’, and ‘adjacent to’ their respective elements as required above; [0036]-[0044]).
Tsunoda does not explicitly teach changing the potential difference so that a direction of an electric field between the upbeam charged particle-optical element and the downbeam charged particle-optical element is reversed.
However, changing the polarity of a field between two electrode elements of a lens assembly such as that of Tsunoda would be well within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art, given the relatively high level of ordinary skill, the simplicity in changing the potential difference between two electrodes to change a field therebetween, and given the device of Tsunoda would be readily capable of arbitrary voltage application to the relevant plates.
As such, while not explicitly disclosed by Tsunoda, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsunoda to achieve changing the potential difference so that a direction of an electric field between the upbeam charged particle-optical element and the downbeam charged particle-optical element is reversed.
Doing so represents applying basic lens control techniques, that would be known to an ordinarily skilled artisan, to prior art disclosed structure, in a manner that would have predictable results, namely, the according change in lensing effect of changing the direction of the field (which could be readily determined by basic scientific principles), and would allow one to achieve the functionality of Tsunoda to operate the various lens elements in coordination, as discussed in [0045]-[0060], to achieve arbitrary beam control.
For completeness: Examiner notes that the prior art of record King (US 5177366 A) also discloses changing the polarity of electrodes to provide decelerating effects and discloses the device therein as being adaptable to either polarity particles, the prior art of record Steenbrink (WO 2010037832 A2) also discloses changing the polarity of voltages applied to electrode to control scanning of the particles, .
Claim 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunoda (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20120319001 A1), in view of Arbabi (DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03155-6).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Tsunoda teaches the charged particle-optical assembly of claim 1.
Tsunoda does not explicitly teach wherein the charged particle-optical assembly comprises one or more charged particle-optical elements which comprise a microelectromechanical component.
However, the general use of a microelectromechanical component within a charged particle-optical assembly as ‘one or more charged particle-optical elements’, that are not particularly limited, would be known be one of ordinary skill in the art, given the aforementioned high level of ordinary skill in the art, and given the fact that no particular element(s) is/are require to include the microelectromechanical component.
Nevertheless, Arbabi teaches the use of a MEMS-tunable dielectric metasurface lens (See Figs. 1-5; Abstract; Introduction, in particular final paragraph; Results, in particular Concept and design, Experimental doublet characterization results, Imaging with electrical focusing, and Electrically tunable compact microscope sections).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsunoda to explicitly include wherein the charged particle-optical assembly comprises one or more charged particle-optical elements which comprise a microelectromechanical component, as taught by Arbabi.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as Arbabi discloses the use of such a charged particle-optical element including such a microelectromechanical component in a charged particle-optical assembly, and one of ordinary skill in the art could readily apply such a microelectromechanical component with a reasonable expectation of success, and achieving predictable results, namely, precise positional control of the element connected thereto, such as the various lens and deflector elements of the arrangement of Tsunoda.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 H 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights