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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification (e.g., paragraph 0027, U.S. 11,699,607) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
FIGs. 4A-4D: the figure labels, reference characters, and other annotations are not arranged in a consistent orientation. See MPEP § 608.02(V) and 37 CFR 1.84(p)(1). The inconsistent orientation further renders the legend unclear, as the patterns assigned to “FRU” and “Fixed column base” are offset from each other by a rotation of 90°; it is unclear if the patterns in the figures themselves are meant to be read in the same orientation as the legend or the same orientation as the reference characters.
FIG. 5 appears to contain a label above “Lens #1” which is unreadable due to overlapping with the depicted fringe fields.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claims:
Lens stack (claims 2, 9, and 16);
No new matter should be entered.
Figures 4A and 5 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference signs mentioned in the description:
Array 600;
Fringe field lines 602;
Lenses 604;
Miniature electron beam column 800;
Steering deflector/limiting aperture 808.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description:
FIGs. 4A-4D, legend: FRU;
FIG. 5: 602y.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0029: “The stage 201” should read “The stage [[201]]208”;
Paragraph 0029: “array support 208” should read “array support [[208]]206”;
Paragraph 0047: “FIGS. 6A-6G” should read “FIGS. 6A-6[[G]]D”;
Paragraph 0048 discloses that “[a]s shown in the figures, each square surrounding active column 408 includes a square box surrounding the filled circle. The square box represents the spacing of the column.” It is unclear what is meant by “each square” or “a square box”; the figures do not appear to show a square or a box surrounding the filled circles of active column 408;
Paragraph 0077 is a duplicate of paragraph 0076.
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is further objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The specification contains no reference to a “wafer-scale” fabricated lens stack (claims 2, 9, and 16).
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 1-2 and 6 be found allowable, claims 15-16 and 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as respectively being substantial duplicates thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim 17 is 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 17 recites the limitation “each ion beam column” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “each ion beam column” to mean “each [[ion]]electron beam column.”
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.
(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, 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hamaguchi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0028046 A1), hereinafter Hamaguchi.
Regarding claim 1, Hamaguchi discloses a device comprising:
a two dimensional array of electron beam columns (FIG. 34B: each cathode 12 is an individual electron beam column) configured to inspect a wafer (paragraph 0185, lines 5-7; wafer 44), the two dimensional array including at least one electron beam column or a magnetic element located in each dimension of the two dimensional array (FIG. 34B: the array includes at least one electron beam column in both the vertical and horizonal dimensions of the figure),
wherein each electron beam column includes:
an electron source (FIG. 34B, element 12), and
a detector (FIG. 29, detectors 700) in line with the electron source (paragraph 0186),
wherein the two dimensional array is arranged such that each electron beam column is located adjacent to a magnetic element (FIG. 18B and paragraph 0156: each aperture 204 of the electron beam columns is surrounded by magnetic coil 542).
Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Hamaguchi teaches the structural limitations of the device as discussed supra. Therefore, the functional limitation “to minimize optical variation resulting from one or more magnetic fields” is met.
Regarding claim 3, Hamaguchi as applied to claim 1 discloses the device of claim 1.
In addition, Hamaguchi discloses that each electron beam column (paragraph 0198, lines 11-14) includes a magnetic objective lens (FIG. 33, element 52) in line with the electron source (FIGs. 33, 34: electron source 10 including element 12) and the detector (FIGs. 33, 29: detector 50 including detectors 700).
Regarding claim 4, Hamaguchi as applied to claim 1 discloses the device of claim 1.
In addition, Hamaguchi discloses that the two dimensional array includes at least one row of electron beam columns completely surrounded by adjacently placed magnetic elements (FIG. 18A: the row of electron beam columns in the horizontal direction of the figure are completely surrounded by magnetic elements 210a, 210b).
Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Hamaguchi teaches the structural limitations of the device as discussed supra. Therefore, the functional limitations “to increase throughput or make the one or more magnetic fields uniform across the two dimensional array” are met.
Regarding claim 5, Hamaguchi as applied to claim 1 discloses the device of claim 1.
In addition, Hamaguchi discloses that the two dimensional array includes two rows of electron beam columns adjacent to one another and magnetic elements completely surrounding the two rows of electron beam columns (FIG. 8 shows multiple rows of apertures 204 of the electron beam columns completely surrounded by magnetic coil 200).
Regarding claim 7, Hamaguchi as applied to claim 1 discloses the device of claim 1.
In addition, Hamaguchi discloses that the two dimensional array includes shielding elements (paragraph 0163 and FIG. 21B, shielding elements 606) surrounding each electron beam column in the two dimensional array (FIG. 21B shows shielding elements 606 surrounding apertures 194 of the electron beam columns).
Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Hamaguchi teaches the structural limitations of the device as discussed supra. Therefore, the functional limitation “in order to reduce fringe field effects” is met.
Regarding claim 8, Hamaguchi discloses a system comprising
a wafer (FIG. 1, element 44);
a controller (FIG. 1, element 140); and
a two dimensional array of electron beam columns (FIG. 34B: each cathode 12 is an individual electron beam column) configured to inspect the wafer (paragraph 0185, lines 5-7; wafer 44), the two dimensional array including at least one electron beam column or a magnetic element located in each dimension of the two dimensional array (FIG. 34B: the array includes at least one electron beam column in both the vertical and horizonal dimensions of the figure),
wherein each electron beam column includes:
an electron source (FIG. 34B, element 12), and
a detector (FIG. 29, detectors 700) in line with the electron source (paragraph 0186),
wherein the two dimensional array is arranged such that each electron beam column is located adjacent to a magnetic element (FIG. 18B and paragraph 0156: each aperture 204 of the electron beam columns is surrounded by magnetic coil 542).
Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Hamaguchi teaches the structural limitations of the device as discussed supra. Therefore, the functional limitation “to minimize optical variation resulting from one or more magnetic fields” is met.
Regarding claim 10, Hamaguchi as applied to claim 8 discloses the system of claim 8.
In addition, Hamaguchi discloses that each electron beam column (paragraph 0198, lines 11-14) includes a magnetic objective lens (FIG. 33, element 52) in line with the electron source (FIGs. 33, 34: electron source 10 including element 12) and the detector (FIGs. 33, 29: detector 50 including detectors 700).
Regarding claim 11, Hamaguchi as applied to claim 8 discloses the system of claim 8.
In addition, Hamaguchi discloses that the two dimensional array includes at least one row of electron beam columns completely surrounded by rows of adjacently placed magnetic elements (FIG. 18A: the row of electron beam columns in the horizontal direction of the figure are completely surrounded by magnetic elements 210a, 210b).
Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Hamaguchi teaches the structural limitations of the device as discussed supra. Therefore, the functional limitations “to increase throughput or make the one or more magnetic fields uniform across the two dimensional array” are met.
Regarding claim 12, Hamaguchi as applied to claim 8 discloses the system of claim 8.
In addition, Hamaguchi discloses that the two dimensional array includes two rows of electron beam columns directly adjacent to one another and magnetic elements completely surrounding the two rows of electron beam columns (FIG. 8 shows multiple rows of apertures 204 of the electron beam columns completely surrounded by magnetic coil 200).
Regarding claim 14, Hamaguchi as applied to claim 8 discloses the system of claim 8.
In addition, Hamaguchi discloses that the two dimensional array includes shielding elements (paragraph 0163 and FIG. 21B, shielding elements 606) surrounding each electron beam column in the two dimensional array (FIG. 21B shows shielding elements 606 surrounding apertures 194 of the electron beam columns).
Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Hamaguchi teaches the structural limitations of the device as discussed supra. Therefore, the functional limitation “in order to reduce fringe field effects” is met.
Regarding claim 15, Hamaguchi discloses a device comprising:
a two dimensional array of electron beam columns (FIG. 34B: each cathode 12 is an individual electron beam column) configured to inspect a wafer (paragraph 0185, lines 5-7; wafer 44), the two dimensional array including at least one electron beam column or a magnetic element located in each dimension of the two dimensional array (FIG. 34B: the array includes at least one electron beam column in both the vertical and horizonal dimensions of the figure),
wherein each electron beam column includes:
an electron source (FIG. 34B, element 12), and
a detector (FIG. 29, detectors 700) in line with the electron source (paragraph 0186),
wherein the two dimensional array is arranged such that each electron beam column is located adjacent to a magnetic element (FIG. 18B and paragraph 0156: each aperture 204 of the electron beam columns is surrounded by magnetic coil 542).
Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Hamaguchi teaches the structural limitations of the device as discussed supra. Therefore, the functional limitation “to minimize optical variation resulting from one or more magnetic fields” is met.
Regarding claim 17, Hamaguchi as applied to claim 15 discloses the device of claim 15.
In addition, Hamaguchi discloses that each electron beam column (paragraph 0198, lines 11-14) includes a magnetic objective lens (FIG. 33, element 52) in line with the electron source (FIGs. 33, 34: electron source 10 including element 12) and the detector (FIGs. 33, 29: detector 50 including detectors 700).
Regarding claim 18, Hamaguchi as applied to claim 15 discloses the device of claim 15.
In addition, Hamaguchi discloses that the two dimensional array includes at least one row of electron beam columns completely surrounded by rows of adjacently placed magnetic elements (FIG. 18A: the row of electron beam columns in the horizontal direction of the figure are completely surrounded by magnetic elements 210a, 210b).
Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Hamaguchi teaches the structural limitations of the device as discussed supra. Therefore, the functional limitations “to increase throughput or make the one or more magnetic fields uniform across the two dimensional array” are met.
Regarding claim 19, Hamaguchi as applied to claim 15 discloses the device of claim 15.
In addition, Hamaguchi discloses that the two dimensional array includes two rows of electron beam columns directly adjacent to one another and magnetic elements completely surrounding the two rows of electron beam columns (FIG. 8 shows multiple rows of apertures 204 of the electron beam columns completely surrounded by magnetic coil 200).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamaguchi as respectively applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, in view of Spallas et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,045,794 B1), hereinafter Spallas.
Regarding claim 2, Hamaguchi as applied to claim 1 discloses the device of claim 1.
Hamaguchi fails to disclose that the device comprises silicon lenses and lens stack fabricated wafer-scale using MEMS and IC technologies.
However, Spallas discloses that the device comprises silicon lenses (column 2, lines 40-41) and lens stack (FIG. 2, element 200) fabricated wafer-scale using MEMS (column 2, lines 38-40).
Therefore, 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 Hamaguchi to include that the device comprises silicon lenses and lens stack fabricated wafer-scale using MEMS, based on the teachings of Spallas that stacked lenses improve the reliability of the system and the predictability of surface breakdown paths (Spallas, column 4, lines 20-33).
Hamaguchi in view of Spallas fails to disclose that the silicon lenses and lens stack are fabricated using IC technologies. However, claim 2 is directed to a device, i.e., a product. The limitation “fabricated wafer-scale using MEMS and IC technologies” is a process which produces the claimed lenses and lens stack of the device. Therefore, claim 2 is a product-by-process claim. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). In the case at hand, Hamaguchi in view of Spallas teaches the product as claimed, including the silicon lenses and lens stack (Spallas, column 2, lines 40-41 and FIG. 2, element 200). Therefore, the limitations of the claim are met.
Regarding claim 9, Hamaguchi as applied to claim 8 discloses the system of claim 8.
Hamaguchi fails to disclose that the system comprises silicon lenses and lens stack fabricated wafer-scale using MEMS and IC technologies.
However, Spallas discloses that the system comprises silicon lenses (column 2, lines 40-41) and lens stack (FIG. 2, element 200) fabricated wafer-scale using MEMS (column 2, lines 38-40).
Therefore, 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 Hamaguchi to include that the system comprises silicon lenses and lens stack fabricated wafer-scale using MEMS, based on the teachings of Spallas that stacked lenses improve the reliability of the system and the predictability of surface breakdown paths (Spallas, column 4, lines 20-33).
Hamaguchi in view of Spallas fails to disclose that the silicon lenses and lens stack are fabricated using IC technologies. However, claim 9 is directed to a system, i.e., a product. The limitation “fabricated wafer-scale using MEMS and IC technologies” is a process which produces the claimed lenses and lens stack of the system. Therefore, claim 9 is a product-by-process claim. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). In the case at hand, Hamaguchi in view of Spallas teaches the product as claimed, including the silicon lenses and lens stack (Spallas, column 2, lines 40-41 and FIG. 2, element 200). Therefore, the limitations of the claim are met.
Regarding claim 16, Hamaguchi as applied to claim 15 discloses the device of claim 15.
Hamaguchi fails to disclose that the device comprises silicon lenses and lens stack fabricated wafer-scale using MEMS and IC technologies.
However, Spallas discloses that the device comprises silicon lenses (column 2, lines 40-41) and lens stack (FIG. 2, element 200) fabricated wafer-scale using MEMS (column 2, lines 38-40).
Therefore, 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 Hamaguchi to include that the device comprises silicon lenses and lens stack fabricated wafer-scale using MEMS, based on the teachings of Spallas that stacked lenses improve the reliability of the system and the predictability of surface breakdown paths (Spallas, column 4, lines 20-33).
Hamaguchi in view of Spallas fails to disclose that the silicon lenses and lens stack are fabricated using IC technologies. However, claim 16 is directed to a device, i.e., a product. The limitation “fabricated wafer-scale using MEMS and IC technologies” is a process which produces the claimed lenses and lens stack of the device. Therefore, claim 16 is a product-by-process claim. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). In the case at hand, Hamaguchi in view of Spallas teaches the product as claimed, including the silicon lenses and lens stack (Spallas, column 2, lines 40-41 and FIG. 2, element 200). Therefore, the limitations of the claim are met.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamaguchi as respectively applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, in view of Jiang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0118784 A1), hereinafter Jiang.
Regarding claim 6, Hamaguchi as applied to claim 1 discloses the device of claim 1.
In addition, Hamaguchi discloses that the two dimensional array is arranged such that two rows of electron beam columns are completely surrounded by magnetic elements (FIG. 8 shows multiple rows of apertures 204 of the electron beam columns completely surrounded by magnetic coil 200).
Hamaguchi fails to disclose hexagonally shaped rows of electron beam columns.
However, Jiang discloses hexagonally shaped rows of electron beam columns (FIG. 6 and paragraph 0064: each electron spot 602 corresponds to an electron beamlet, i.e., each spot 602 represents an electron beam column; the spots 602 are arranged in hexagonally shaped rows).
Therefore, 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 Hamaguchi to include hexagonally shaped rows of electron beam columns, based on the teachings of Jiang that the hexagonal shape provides optical advantages including a close approximation of rotational symmetry (Jiang, paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 13, Hamaguchi as applied to claim 8 discloses the system of claim 8.
In addition, Hamaguchi discloses that the two dimensional array is arranged such that two rows of electron beam columns are completely surrounded by magnetic elements (FIG. 8 shows multiple rows of apertures 204 of the electron beam columns completely surrounded by magnetic coil 200).
Hamaguchi fails to disclose hexagonally shaped rows of electron beam columns.
However, Jiang discloses hexagonally shaped rows of electron beam columns (FIG. 6 and paragraph 0064: each electron spot 602 corresponds to an electron beamlet, i.e., each spot 602 represents an electron beam column; the spots 602 are arranged in hexagonally shaped rows).
Therefore, 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 Hamaguchi to include hexagonally shaped rows of electron beam columns, based on the teachings of Jiang that the hexagonal shape provides optical advantages including a close approximation of rotational symmetry (Jiang, paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 20, Hamaguchi as applied to claim 15 discloses the device of claim 15.
In addition, Hamaguchi discloses that the two dimensional array is arranged such that two rows of electron beam columns are completely surrounded by magnetic elements (FIG. 8 shows multiple rows of apertures 204 of the electron beam columns completely surrounded by magnetic coil 200).
Hamaguchi fails to disclose hexagonally shaped rows of electron beam columns.
However, Jiang discloses hexagonally shaped rows of electron beam columns (FIG. 6 and paragraph 0064: each electron spot 602 corresponds to an electron beamlet, i.e., each spot 602 represents an electron beam column; the spots 602 are arranged in hexagonally shaped rows).
Therefore, 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 Hamaguchi to include hexagonally shaped rows of electron beam columns, based on the teachings of Jiang that the hexagonal shape provides optical advantages including a close approximation of rotational symmetry (Jiang, paragraph 0062).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Frosien et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0151711 A1), hereinafter Frosien, teaches a two dimensional array of electron beam columns, wherein the two dimensional array includes at least one row of electron beam columns completely surrounded by adjacently placed magnetic elements.
Steenbrink et al. (EP Patent No. 4020517 A1), hereinafter Steenbrink, teaches a device comprising: an array of electron beam columns configured to inspect a wafer, wherein each electron beam column includes: an electron source, and a detector in line with the electron source; and wherein the device comprises lenses fabricated wafer-scale using MEMS and IC technologies.
Haynes et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0358200 A1), hereinafter Haynes, teaches shielding elements configured to reduce fringe field effects.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights