DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 5-12, 22 and 24-32 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Page 10 of the remarks suggest that capturing an image does not equate to capturing a first image of the sample outside a sample chamber when the sample is in focus of the first imaging device. This has been found unpersuasive. Initially, the claim merely requires “a first imaging device” and capturing a first image of the sample outside a sample chamber when the sample is in focus of the first imaging device. There is no requirement as to what “a first imaging device” therefore any inspection equipment that provides an image is within the scope of the broadly claimed “imaging device”, including “other inspection equipment” that determines the location of foreign material and defects (page 5, third full paragraph). Specifically, as suggested in the remarks, background of the specification of Nozoe teaches inspection is a method of detecting scattered light by irradiation with a laser beam on the wafer surface and capturing an image. Therefore, since the inspection device of Nozoe captures an image and the inspection device is in advance to loading the sample, the image is captured by a first imaging device outside of the sample chamber.
The remarks continue by discussing paragraph [0025] does not suggest focusing of a first imaging device outside the chamber or any imaging or other analysis occurs on the loading unit. This was admitted in the last office action (see pages 6-7). Takahashi was used to remedy this deficiency of Nozoe.
The remarks continue by suggesting that Takahashi only teaches actuating the imaging unit to achieve focusing. This has been found unpersuasive. The claim in no way limited how the stage is adjusted to achieve focusing. Takahashi clearly teaches a stage 2, wherein paragraph [0089] teaches “the controller 32 receives the instruction and moves the sample stage 2 to the observation position A through the stage driver 33. When the sample stage 2 reaches the observation position A, the imaging unit 7 focuses on the sample 4 at an indicated magnification and takes a surface observation image of the sample 4 on the sample stage 2”
That is, by movement of the stage to position A the sample stage and sample are adjusted to focus a first imaging device on the sample (i.e. movement of the stage and sample allows the focusing of the first imaging device to occur on the sample). However, it is noted that the claim has been clarified to require adjust the focus of a first imaging device by adjusting a height of the stage assembly relative to the first imaging device. Upon further search and consideration, it has been found that such a limitation would have been obvious to at least Sandkuijl et al. (US2021/0373313) which teaches in paragraph [0068] that “Autofocusing correction may be performed by adjusting the optics (e.g., distance between optical elements), via positioners that adjust focus in the Z-direction, and/or adjustment of the sample stage in the Z-direction. In certain aspects, autofocusing correction may be performed by adjusting the z-position of the sample stage.” That is, since Takahashi discloses the stage 2 may move in the height direction ([0080]) and Sandkuijl is evidence that focus adjustment may be done via adjustment optics or by moving the sample stage, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the sample stage of Takahashi as suggested by Sandkuijl because it would lead to predictable result of focus adjustment (MPEP 2143 (I)(B)).
The remarks then contend the imaging system of Takahashi is inside the sample chamber. This is not persuasive because figure 2 of Takahashi clearly shows the sample chamber (at position “C”) is separated from the imaging position “A” by partitions 42/43 which separate the vacuum chamber from atmosphere ([0106]). Therefore, it is clear that the imaging system in chamber 40 at atmospheric pressure is outside the vacuum chamber of the sample chamber 45.
The remarks next argue that the field of view of the optical system of Nozoe is smaller than the field of view of the “other inspection equipment”. Specifically, the remarks note that displaying a cursor on a focal position on a display unit does not mean that a field of view is now smaller than a field of view of another imaging system.
This has been found unpersuasive. Specifically, the claim requires “a first imaging device” and “a second imaging device”, the second imaging device having a smaller field of view than the first field of view of the first imaging device.
The “other inspection equipment” captures an image of a semiconductor circuit pattern and performing comparative inspection so as to detect only foreign matter and defects ([0002] of translation provided by applicant). Paragraph [0025] teaches the inspection equipment provides “locations of foreign matter and defects”. That is, the other inspection equipment has a FOV to cover more than one foreign matter and defect. Additionally, paragraph [0025] last paragraph teaches the positional coordinates of the foreign matter are loaded into a computer and “the sample stage is moved so that the foreign matter position to be analyzed comes directly under the laser irradiation optical system and the observation optical system”. In otherwords, the field of view of the “other inspection equipment” must inherently be larger so as to determine locations of more than one foreign matter or defect, whereas the optical system has a FOV so that the foreign matter is directly under the observation optical system that generates the second image as discussed in paragraph [0026].
Therefore, the remarks on this point are also unpersuasive.
Next the arguments suggest Nozoe fails to disclose the second field of view is redirected by a first imaging path optical element and , the first removal source beam and the second material removal source beam are al redirected via the first laser path optical element. This has been found unpersuasive, second FOV is redirected by either 24 or 10 in figure 3 and first and second beams are redirected by mirror 10 as seen in figure 3 to change the direction of each laser beam/light source towards the sample.
The remarks then take the position that Nozoe fails to disclose the second material removal beam is applied “after delivering the first ionized sample of material to the mass spectrometer”. This has been found unpersuasive. Specifically, page 6, third full paragraph describes a method where irradiation energy conditions are changed in a sequence of increasing laser energy and re-analysis. That is, after the first vaporization event and analysis (i.e. delivery of ionized sample material to the spectrometer) an additional vaporization event and re-analysis (subsequent delivery of ionized sample material to spectrometer). (see new interpretation of Nozoe herein below)
The remarks next attempt to distinguish “vaporization” from desorption. This has been found unpersuasive. Initially, the instant specification describes desorption in terms of forming a vapor cloud ([0067] of the instant published specification), therefore desorption to generate a vapor cloud would be readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be vaporization. Moreover, paragraph [0039] of the published application describes a low energy beam for desorption, since the laser energy for vaporizing the organic material of Nozoe is also low energy, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the low energy vaporization of Nozoe to be within the scope of desorption as required. Lastly, the remarks assert that “vaporization is not desorption”. This is contrary to both the specification and the skill in the art. For instance, as discussed above, the instant specification describes the desorption process to create a vapor cloud ([0067]). Thus suggesting vaporization. Moreover, as evidenced by US pgPub 2019/0115200 to Harada desorption and vaporization are used interchangeably (see for instance paragraph [0023] which recites “in the desorption (vaporization) of the substance from the sample while ionization is used by another technique”).
MPEP 2111.01 recites “the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms.”
Here, the instant specification describes desorption in terms of generating a vapor cloud by low energy laser irradiation. Nozoe also generates low energy laser irradiation that results in vaporization (i.e. vapor cloud of particles), therefore desorption as claimed is not distinct from vaporization.
The remarks suggest reinterpreting vaporization as desorption would change the principle operation of Nozoe. This has been found unpersuasive. As understood by the instant specification, desorption results in a vapor cloud. There is no claimed requirements as to the degree of vaporization, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would understand any vaporization to be desorption.
Moreover, there is no suggestion to substitute the vaporization of Nozoe with a different desorption technique because Nozoe is not limited to generating just ions, specifically paragraph [0005] of Nozoe submitted by applicant on 02/03/2026 teaches that molecules/atoms/ions generated by the vaporization. Therefore, post-ionization would allow for the further benefit of improved ionization efficiency, as well as advantages discussed herein below.
The remarks take the same position with respect to ablation, however again the instant specification describes ablation as result of a high energy laser beam to inorganics. Nozoe also applies a high energy laser beam to inorganic material, therefore is interpreted to be ablation. Moreover, as discussed above, paragraph [0005] of Nozoe submitted by applicant teaches molecules/atoms/ions are generated by vaporization, therefore adopting post ablation ionization to the high energy laser of Nozoe would achieve the advantage of improving the ionization efficiency of the inorganic material as well as advantages discussed herein below.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, the remarks argue that none of the cited art disclose a method for selective desorption of organics, post-ionization, ablation of inorganics and a second posit ionization at the same analysis all coordinated, sequential in manner. However, it is the combination of references that suggest these requirements of the claim as discussed previously and reiterated herein below.
Therefore, the remarks are unpersuasive and the rejection stands as reiterated herein below.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 31-32 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Claims 31-32 and claims 1-2, 5-12, 22 and 24-30 are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination covering claims 1-2, 5-12, 22 and 24-30 has separate utility such as sequential order of ablation after delivering the first ionized sample of material to mass spectrometer and redirection of the second field of view, first and second removal source beams via respective optical elements towards the axis. Alternatively, claims 31-32 have a separate utility such as x-y-z adjustment to move the sampling area into focus and illuminating with a light source. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 31-32 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a first imaging device” in claim 1. (camera system [0044])
“a second imaging device” in claim 1. (camera system [0044])
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-2, 5-12, 22 and 24-30 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 the limitation "the adjusted position" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that this is referring back to the position “by adjusting a height of the stage assembly relative to the first imaging device”, however no unambiguous determination can be made.
Claims 2, 5-12, 22 and 24-30 are vague and indefinite by virtue of their dependencies on rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 12, 22, 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozoe (JPH10153579) (copy of published application submitted with the office action of 30 June 2023) in view of Takahashi et al. (us pgPub 2012/0132799) in view of Sandkuijl et al. (US pgPub 2021/0373313) in view of Savina (Savina et al. “Microscopic Chemical Imaging with Laser desorption Mass spectrometry”, Anal. Chem. 1997)) (submitted with the parent application on 08 September 2020) and further in view of in view of Getty (submitted with IDS of 11 April 2019 of the parent application) and further in view of Scheuler (submitted with IDS of 11 April 2019 of the parent application).
Alternatively, Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozoe in view of Takahashi in view of Sandkuijil et al. in view of Getty and Scheuler
Regarding claim 1, Nozoe teaches a method of sample analysis (inherent in the apparatus of fig. 3) comprising:
Adjusting a stage assembly (stage 6, third full paragraph on page 5 of the machine translation teaches moving the sample stage 6 to position the wafer 5 right under the optical system (i.e. mechanically translating stage 6 from loading section 29 to the position for desired foreign matter for analysis)) including a sample holder (cooling unit 28 is in contact with lower surface of sample 5 thus a sample holder) on which a sample is placed (as seen in figure 3)
capturing a first image of the sample outside a sample chamber (the third full paragraph on page 5 teaches that an inspection occurs in advance of loading the wafer in order to determine the location of foreign matter on the sample by other inspection equipment. Page 1 second full paragraph teaches inspection captures an image of the semiconductor circuit pattern. Thus, the other inspection equipment captures an image outside of the chamber 7 of figure 3 prior to being loaded by loading section 29), the first image having a first field of view encompassing an analysis location (page 5, third full paragraph teaches determining the location of foreign material and defects. Page 1, second full paragraph teaches capturing an image of the semiconductor circuit pattern. Thus to determine the location of foreign material and defects (multiple points of analysis), the other inspection equipment generates an image having a field of view covering the entire surface);
mechanically translating the sample into the sample chamber (last five lines of third full paragraph on page 5 of the machine translation teaches moving the sample stage 6 to position the wafer 5 right under the optical system (i.e. mechanically translating stage 6 from loading section 29 to the position for desired foreign matter for analysis). Further page 4, second full paragraph teaches “the sample stage is configured to be moved to a desired position according to the instruction from the control unit 19”. Thus the stage 6 is mechanically moved into the chamber from loading section 29);
from the adjusted position of the sample assembly, further adjusting the stage assembly including the sample holder on which the sample is placed to focus a second imaging device on the sample (third paragraph on page 5 teaches moving the sample stage 6 such that observation to come right under the optical system and forth paragraph teaches adjusting the height of the stage 6 to focus the optical system on the wafer)
capturing a second image of the analysis location of the sample disposed within the sample chamber using the second imaging device (fourth full paragraph on page 5 of the machine translation, irradiating optical system in the optical path of the observation optical system with a mirror 24 and illuminates the wafer 5 surface with light and captured by the camera 27, which is displayed on the display unit 18. Thus a second image is taken with the wafer inside the chamber 7 as seen in figure 3 where mirror 24 directs the light towards wafer 5 inside the chamber 7) having a second field of view into the sample chamber along an axis (as seen in figure 3, the image captured at camera 27 has a second FOV different from that of the “other inspection equipment”), the second field of view smaller than the first field of view (fig. 3, field of view of light from light source 26 reflected by mirror 24 in chamber. Second full paragraph on page 5 teaches coaxial relationship of light of the sample vaporizing beam and illumination light source. That is, field of view is the axis perpendicular to the surface of sample 5. Page 5, fourth full paragraph teaches “while observing the image of the wafer surface, by adjusting the height of the sample stage 6…it focuses the optical system on the wafer 5 on the surface. In addition, this was indicated by the cursor or the focal position of the optical system on the monitor screen of the display unit 18, there to be the point of an analysis (foreign matter position) is precisely aligned to come in” In other words, the optical system is focused on the point of analysis, thus having a field of view smaller than the entire wafer imaged by the “other inspection equipment” discussed above), the second field of view redirected by a first imaging path optical element from the second imaging device toward the axis (redirected via mirror 24 as seen in figure 3);
subsequent to capturing the second image (fourth through fifth full paragraphs on page 5 teach imaging the surface of wafer 5 with optical system, then switching to the laser beam irradiation), applying a first material removal beam along the axis to the sample to desorb a first organic sample of material from the sample at the analysis location (page 5, last full paragraph teaches vaporizing the sample with laser light from source 20, page 6, first full paragraph teaches vaporizing organic matter with low energy and vaporizing metal (i.e. inorganic) with higher energy. See also third full paragraph on page 6 for condition A to vaporize organic matter and condition B for vaporizing a metal. Since desorption in the instant invention is for organic metal and ablation is for inorganic metal, Nozoe is interpreted to perform desorption at condition A and ablation at condition be by applying appropriate energy conditions to the beam), the material removal beam produced from a first material removal source beam originating from a first laser source (20), the first material removal source beam redirected via a first laser path optical element (optical element 10);
generate a first ionized sample of material (via vaporization);
delivering the first ionized sample of material to a mass spectrometer for analysis (via TOF MS as seen in figure 3);
without repositioning the sample relative to the first laser source, applying a second material removal beam along the axis to the sample to ablate a second non-organic sample of material from the sample at the analysis location after delivering the first ionized sample of material to the mass spectrometer, wherein the second material removal beam is produced from a second material removal source beam originating from the first laser source (see discussion in the clause above with respect to condition B. Note, the second paragraph on page 6 of the machine translation teaches organic matter is vaporized at low energy and metal (inorganic) requires high energy for vaporization. Since the instant specification also teaches a low energy beam (e.g. IR range) for desorbing organic material and a high energy beam (e.g. in the UV range) capable of ablating inorganic material, it is interpreted that the low energy beam vaporizing the organic material and the high energy beam vaporizing the inorganic material are equivalent to respective desorption and ablation (see paragraph [0039] of the instant pre-grant published application). Note page 6, second to last paragraph teaches energy of the laser light is variably set by changing or the transmittance of the transmittance adjustment filter 23. Lastly Nozoe does not teach repositioning the sample between changing of conditions, thus without repositioning the sample relative the laser source).
Nozoe teaches the wafer is loaded onto the stage 6 from the loading section 29 where other inspection equipment determines location of foreign material and defects (third paragraph on page 5). In otherwords, the stage is not disclosed to enter the loading section 29 where other inspection occurs. Therefore, the stage including the sample holder and sample are not expressly disclosed to be adjusted to focus a first imaging device on the sample and mechanically translating the stage assembly including the sample holder and the sample placed thereon into the sample chamber.
However, Takahashi et al. teaches the stage (fig. 2 stage 2) including the sample holder (3) and sample (4) are adjusted to focus a first imaging device on the sample ([0089] imaging unit 7 focuses on the sample 4 when sample stage 2 reaches the observation position A (i.e. adjusting stage with holding plate and sample)) capturing the first image of the sample outside the sample chamber when the sample is in the focus position (focus position discussed in paragraph [0089] and inherent to an imaging unit) and mechanically translating the stage assembly including the sample holder and the sample placed thereon into the sample chamber ([0093] movement of stage 2 (i.e. with sample and sample holder) to position C into the sample chamber which is closed by partition 5a).
Takahashi modifies Nozoe by suggesting a single stage that transports the sample from the imaging section outside the sample chamber to the sample chamber instead of two separate stages (i.e. one in the load area and one in the sample chamber). Therefore allowing for the further adjusting discussed by Nozoe from the adjusted position of the sample assembly to focus the first imaging device on the sample. That is, by placing a single stage suggested by Takahashi in the method of Nozoe the adjustment of the stage to the second imaging position of Nozoe would be performed by the single stage suggested in Takashi.
Since both inventions are directed towards sample introduction into ionization sources for a mass spectrometry system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nozoe to have a single stage for positioning the sample holder from an outside imaging system to the sample ionization chamber as suggested in Takahashi because when removing a sample from an imaging stage to a sample stage a positional error may occur which impedes an accurate analysis ([0010]). Therefore, by using a single stage for both the imaging and mass analysis, positional error may be reduced and accuracy may be increased since there is no transfer from one stage to another as suggested in Nozoe.
Nozoe in view of Takahashi fails to disclosure the focus adjustment by adjusting a height of the stage assembly relative to the first imaging device.
However, Sandkuijl et al. teaches focus adjustment by adjusting a height of the stage assembly relative to the first imaging device (paragraph [0068] that “Autofocusing correction may be performed by adjusting the optics (e.g., distance between optical elements), via positioners that adjust focus in the Z-direction, and/or adjustment of the sample stage in the Z-direction. In certain aspects, autofocusing correction may be performed by adjusting the z-position of the sample stage.”) That is, since Takahashi discloses the stage 2 may move in the height direction ([0080]) and Sandkuijl is evidence that focus adjustment may be done via adjustment optics or by moving the sample stage, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the sample stage of Takahashi as suggested by Sandkuijl because it would lead to predictable result of focus adjustment (MPEP 2143 (I)(B)).
Nozoe teaches on page 5, last full paragraph that when intensity of the irradiated laser beam has reached the energy required to vaporize the analyte foreign matter…a part is ionized. Therefore, Nozoe fails to disclose applying first ionization beam to the first sample material to generate first ionized sample material; and delivering the first ionized sample material to a mass spectrometer for analysis and applying a second ionization beam to the second sample material to generate second ionized sample material.
However, Savina teaches applying a first ionization beam to the first sample of material to generate first ionized sample material wherein the first ionization beam is produced from a first ionization source beam originating from a second laser source (post ionization with ionization laser seen in figure 1 ionizes desorbed sample material ); and delivering the ionized sample material to a mass spectrometer for analysis (fig. 1, ions delivered to mass spectrometer in figure 1) and delivering the first ionized sample material to a mass spectrometer for analysis and applying a second ionization beam to the second sample of material to generate second ionized sample material wherein the second ionization beam is produced from a second ionization source beam originating from the second laser source (the system is intended to be used more than once, thus a repetition of the post ionization beam).
Savina modifies Nozoe by teaching a post ionization of desorbed material.
Since both inventions are directed towards laser desorption ionization, it would have been obvious to modify Nozoe to have the post-ionization laser of Savina because recognized that MALDI or LDMS exists and that post-ionization reduces spot to spot ion yield fluctuations and is far less sensitive to chemical and morphological variations in the sample (first page, right column, first through second full paragraph). That is, Savina is evidence that the substitution of one known technique for another would yield the advantage of reducing spot-to-spot yield fluctuations inherent to direct LDMS and makes imaging more feasible.
While, Nozoe teaches a low energy beam for vaporizing organic material and a filter to adjust the energy to a high energy beam for vaporizing inorganic material, Nozoe in view of Savina fails to disclose wherein the first material removal beam is in the infrared range.
However, Getty teaches desorption of organics in a two-step desorption and ionization method with IR light (see methods in abstract).
Getty modifies Nozoe in view of Savina by suggesting substituting the single desorption ionization with a twostep laser desorption ionization with IR light.
Since both methods are directed towards ionization of organic compounds, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the single step vaporization and ionization of organics suggested by Nozoe with the two step suggested by Getty because Getty is evidence that compact laser desorption/ionization uses a single laser wavelength to desorb and ionize analytes from a solid sample. Getty is evidence that for organics a single step desorption/ionization presents challenges in spectral identification due to mass interferences between molecular ions from parent molecules and common fragment ions. Getty is further evidence that the specificity offered by the two-step laser ionization technique has been shown to be particularly effective at targeting aromatic compounds (organic) and this selectivity offers a route to differentiating between classes of organic diverse samples (first page right column, last paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute the single step vaporization/ionization discussed in Nozoe for the IR two step desorption/ionization suggested by Getty because it would improve differentiation between classes of organic in diverse samples allowing for spectral identification.
The combined device further differs from the claimed invention by not disclosing a two-step ionization and ablation of inorganic materials.
However, Scheuler teaches postablation ablation of inorganics with 266 nm light and post ablation ionization (see abstract and page 4653, right column, first full paragraph, first two sentences).
Scheuler modifies the combined device by suggesting the substitution of a single vaporization/ionization step for an ablation followed by post ablation ionization in the UV range to achieve ablation of inorganics followed by post ionization.
Since both inventions are directed towards ionization of inorganics, it would have been obvious to substitute the single vaporization/ionization suggested by Nozoe for the ionization of inorganic material, with the two step method suggested by Scheuler because Scheuler is evidence that vaporization resulting in ionization as suggested by Nozoe was known to the art (introduction, first paragraph on first page, left column). Scheuler further suggests that such vaporization results in most of the ablated material being uncharged (first page right column, lines 12-14). Scheuler notes the two step ablation/ionization results in complete ionization of neutral elements can be achieved (page 4653, left column, last paragraph before Experiments). Scheuler notes in the conclusions section that ionization of neutral components provides a highly sensitive surface probe of material composition and the advantage of a dual probe over a single laser system is that the detection sensitivity is orders of magnitude greater than the single laser system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the single vaporization step method suggested by Nozoe for the two step method discussed in Scheuler because the two-step method would result in increased detection sensitivity.
Alternatively, Nozoe teaches the same limitations as discussed above and fails to disclose applying first ionization beam to the first sample if material to generate a first ionized sample material wherein the first ionization beam is produced from a first ionization source beam originating from a second laser source; and delivering the first ionized sample material to a mass spectrometer for analysis and applying a second ionization beam to the second sample of material to generate a second ionized sample material and wherein the first material removal beam is in the infrared range wherein the second ionization beam is produced from a second ionization source beam originating from the second laser source.
However, Getty teaches applying first ionization beam to the first sample if material to generate a first ionized sample material wherein the first ionization beam is produced from a first ionization source beam originating from a second laser source; and delivering the first ionized sample material to a mass spectrometer for analysis and applying a second ionization beam to the second sample of material to generate a second ionized sample material and wherein the first material removal beam is in the infrared range wherein the second ionization beam is produced from a second ionization source beam originating from the second laser source. (see citations above and abstract teaches post ionization with UV light, note the method is intended to occur more than once).
Getty modifies Nozoe by suggesting two step desorption ionization and desorption of organic material with IR light.
Since both inventions are directed towards vaporizing organic material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the two step desorption/ionization method of Getty with IR wavelength light to provide desorption because the L2MS allows for more specificity effective at targeting the aromatic component of a more complex mixture (first page right column, last sentence). Moreover IR light is optimized for resolving organic composition with minimal fragmentation (second page, last sentence of first paragraph).
The combined device fails to disclose the wavelength of the second condition laser light disclosed in Nozoe for vaporizing inorganics.
Schuler teaches this deficiency as discussed above and modified for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 2, Nozoe in view of Savina teaches delivering the second ionized sample material to a mass spectrometer for analysis (As modified by Savina).
Regarding claim 5, Nozoe teaches wherein the axis is perpendicular to a top surface of the sample (as seen in figure 3).
Regarding claim 6, Nozoe teaches each of the first material removal source beam and the second material removal source beam is delivered from the first laser source into an optical assembly in a direction different than along the axis via the first laser path optical element (fig. 3 shows laser light from 20 moving through lenses along a different direction than the axis perpendicular to the sample 5 via first laser path optical element 10), the optical assembly produces the first material removal beam from the first material removal source beam (via varying the aperture diameter of diaphragm 21, see third full paragraph on page 6) and redirects the first material removal beam into the sample chamber along the axis (via 10 as seen in figure 3) and the optical assembly produces the second material removal beam from the second material removal source beam and redirects the second material removal beam into the sample chamber along the axis (as seen in figure 1, second conditions set by transmittance filter 23 and aperture diameter of diaphragm 21).
Regarding claim 7, Nozoe teaches wherein: the second field of view is directed from the second imaging device into an optical assembly in a direction different than along the axis (from 26 to sample as seen in figure 3), and the optical assembly redirects the second field of view into the sample chamber along the axis (via 24 as seen in figure 3) via the first imaging path optical element (24).
Regarding claim 8, Nozoe teaches wherein: each of the first material removal source beam and the second material removal source beam is delivered from the first laser source (20) into an optical assembly in a first direction not along the axis via the first laser path optical element (optical elements downstream 20 not along axis perpendicular to 5, in particular optical element 10),
the second field of view is directed from the second imaging device into the optical assembly in a second direction not along the axis and different than the first direction via the first imaging path optical element (as seen in figure 3, light from 26 is delivered into the optical assembly in a second direction not along the axis (i.e. portion of light from 26 directly upstream of 24 is translated from the axis perpendicular to the sample 5 and different than the first direction (i.e. perpendicular thereto))),
the optical assembly produces the first material removal beam from the first material removal source beam (see claim 7 above),
the optical assembly produces the second material removal beam from the second removal source beam (high energy condition B in figure 5 by adjustment of filter) and
the optical assembly includes a common optical element that redirects each of the field of view, the first material removal beam and the second material removal beam along the axis (element 10) and through a port (25) of the optical assembly (lenses of figure 1) in communication with the sample chamber (7).
Regarding claim 12, Nozoe in view of Savina teaches wherein the analysis location, the method further comprising:
delivering the second ionized sample material to the mass spectrometer (see claim 2 above) subsequent to delivering the second ionized sample material to the mass spectrometer (Nozoe as seen in figure 1 or as modified by Savina), moving the sample within the sample chamber such that a second analysis location of the sample is aligned with the axis (page 7, first full paragraph teaches vaporizing the analyte locations on the sample surface, thus the procedure is repeated at different locations. Further page 4 second full paragraph teaches a sample placed on sample stage 6 configured to move);
capturing an image of the second analysis location using the imaging device with the second field of view of the imaging device along the axis (as seen in figure 3 of Nozoe);
subsequent to capturing the image of the second analysis location (procedure repeated at second location), applying a third material removal beam along the axis to the sample to produce third sample of material from the sample at the second analysis location (conditions C see citations in claim 1 above and paragraph bridging pages 2-3 and page 6, third full paragraph), the third material removal beam produced from a third source beam originating from the first laser source (by adjustment of energy); applying a third ionization beam to the third sample of material to generate third ionized sample material wherein the third ionization beam is produced from a third ionization source beam originating from the second laser source; and delivering the second ionized sample material to the mass spectrometer for analysis, wherein the third material removal beam is one of in the UV range and ablates the third sample of material from the sample (Nozoe, condition C is for inorganic aluminum and applying the third beam, as modified by Schuler for UV wavelength and postablation ionization. The same rational as discussed in claim 1 above).
Regarding claims 22 and 25, while Nozoe teaches an energy sufficient to vaporize organic matter and a higher energy to vaporize inorganic matter, Nozoe fails to disclose the wavelength of light or the type of laser.
However, Getty et al. teach a ND:YAG laser emitting wavelengths capable of emitting wavelengths of the claimed range (abstract under methods teaches IR 1064 nm desorption and second page, right column, first full paragraph teaches an ND:YAG laser).
Getty modifies the combined device by suggesting the wavelength of light suitable for desorption of organic matter.
Since both inventions are directed towards laser desorption of organic matter, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the wavelength of Getty et al. in the combined device because it is optimized for resolving organic composition with minimal fragmentation (second page, last sentence of first paragraph)
Regarding claim 24, while Nozoe teaches vaporization of inorganic at a higher energy level, Nozoe fails to disclose the wavelength of the laser removing the inorganic material.
However, Scheuler teaches wherein the material removal beam is an UV beam having a wavelength of 266 nm (abstract).
Scheuler modifies the combined device by teaching the wavelength for ablation of inorganic material.
Since both inventions are directed towards vaporization of inorganic material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the wavelength suggested by Scheuler because it light allows for detection sensitivity of a 100-1000 times greater than the detection sensitivity of a single laser ionization mass spectrometer system (conclusions).
Regarding claims 26-27, Nozoe fails to specifically disclose wherein applying a second ionization beam to the second non-organic sample of material to generate a second ionized sample of material is conducted after a delay from the application of the second removal beam to allow any plasma to extinguish wherein the delay is between 10 nanoseconds and 10 microseconds.
However, Nozoe teaches on page 6, third paragraph a time delay of the vaporized ionization by thermal diffusion phenomenon. Therefore, it would have been obvious to delay to allow any plasma to extinguish to ensure analysis of all ionized analytes before irradiating a second time. Moreover, if the time for the plasma to extinguish is between 10 ns and 10 microseconds, it would be obvious to wait only that long so as to shorten the time period to analyze the sample.
Regarding claim 29, Nozoe teaches selecting the analysis location of the sample for analysis based on the first image (page 5, third paragraph teaches loading locations of defects/foreign matter from other inspection equipment and moving the sample stage to that position. Page 1, second paragraph teaches inspection results in an image)
wherein the mechanically translating and further adjusting the stage assembly are performed to move the sample such that the analysis location is within the second field of view of the second imaging device (page 5, third paragraph discusses moving the sample stage right under the optical system)
wherein the first image is a macro-level image encompassing at least a portion of the sample (see response to arguments section above, since multiple deflect/foreign matter locations are determined by “other inspection device”, this is a macro-level image encompassing a portion of the sample (circuit pattern)) and the second image is a micro-level image encompassing the analysis location (desired foreign matter positioned right under observation under the optically system , see page 5, third full paragraph, thus field of view micro because there is only one foreign matter or defect as compared to the image obtained by other inspection device)1
Regarding claim 29, Nozoe in view of Savina teaches selecting another analysis location of the sample for analysis based on the first image (page 5, third paragraph teaches location of foreign material and defects are loaded and pre-loading other position coordinates of the foreign matter to the computer control, thus facilitating selection of another location where defect or foreign matter occurs)
Moving the stage assembly to position the sample such that the another analysis location is aligned with the axis of the second imaging device (same procedure as discussed above in claim 1 with respect to additional locations of foreign material/defects)
Desorbing a sample of material from the sample at the another analysis location via a third material removal beam (same procedure as above in claim 1 as applied to other foreign matter/defect locations);
Ionizing the desorbed sample of material from the another location via a third ionization beam (Nozoe as modified by Savina as discussed above repeated for a different location of foreign matter/defect)
Wherein moving, desorbing and ionizing with respect to another analysis location occur after applying the second ionization beam (new location for vaporization and ionizing would inherently occur after the analysis of the first selected location occurs)2.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozoe in view of Takahashi et al. in view of Savina in view of Getty and Scheuler and further in view of Bossmeyer et al. (USPN 10,236,173) (submitted with IDS).
Regarding claim 9, the combined device fails to disclose wherein delivering the ionized sample material to the mass spectrometer comprises passing the ionized sample material through an ion funnel.
However, Bossmeyer et al. teach wherein delivering the ionized sample material to the mass spectrometer comprises passing the ionized sample material through an ion funnel (ion funnel 3c seen in figure 1).
Bossmeyer et al. modifies the combined device by suggesting an ion funnel included in the MS.
Since both inventions are directed towards laser ionization mass spectrometry, it would have been obvious to have the ion funnel of Bossmeyer in the combined device because ion funnels increase the collection efficiency of the mass spectrometer from the ion source.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozoe in view of Takahashi et al. in view of Savina in view of Getty and Scheuler and further in view of Bossmeyer et al. (USPN 10,236,173) and further in view of Kato (US pgPub 2002/0121599).
Regarding claim 10, while the combined device teaches a quadrupole downstream of the ion funnel, the combined device differs from the claimed invention by not disclosing passing the ionized sample material through a quadrupole ion deflector to redirect the ionized sample material in a second direction different than the first direction.
However, Kato teaches passing the ionized sample material through a quadrupole ion deflector to redirect the ionized sample material in a second direction different than the first direction ([0020]).
Kato modifies the combined device by suggesting configuring the quadrupole as a deflector.
Since both inventions are directed towards mass spectrometers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the quadrupole deflector of Kato in the combined device because neutral particles are not incident to the mass spectrometer and detector and accordingly a high S/N ratio can be obtained ([0020]).
Regarding claim 11, the combined device in view of Kato teach wherein delivering the ionized sample material to the mass spectrometer further comprises, subsequent to redirection by the quadrupole ion deflector, passing the ionized sample material through an Einzel lens (fig. 30 shows Einzel less downstream of quadrupole deflector 81, not annotated, figure 4 annotates Einzel lens as element 25 to focus ions into vacuum chamber see paragraph [0079], therefore subsequent redirection).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozoe (JPH10153579) (copy of published application submitted with the office action of 30 June 2023) in view of Takahashi et al. (us pgPub 2012/0132799) in view of Sandkuijl et al. (US pgPub 2021/0373313) in view of Savina (Savina et al. “Microscopic Chemical Imaging with Laser desorption Mass spectrometry”, Anal. Chem. 1997)) (submitted with the parent application on 08 September 2020) and further in view of in view of Getty (submitted with IDS of 11 April 2019 of the parent application) and further in view of Scheuler (submitted with IDS of 11 April 2019 of the parent application) in view of US2007/0102632 to Overney et al.
Regarding claim 30, Nozoe in view of Takahashi teaches before focusing the first imaging device on the sample by adjusting the stage assembly, extending the first imaging device from a housing to an imaging position aligned to capture the first image of the sample outside of the sample chamber (Takahashi, fig. 2 shows imaging unit 7 and extending from the housing 45 (note the claim does not require any actuation of the imaging device therefore since the chamber 45 and imaging unit 7 extend from the chamber 45 where analysis occurs the limitation is met)), the housing coupled to the sample chamber, the second imaging device, the first laser source and the mass spectrometer (Nozoe, optics, light sources, imaging unit coupled to the sample housing as seen in figure 3).
The combined device fails to disclose the housing including therein the sample chamber, the second imaging device, the first laser source and the mass spectrometer.
However, Overney et al. teach the housing (fig. 3, 10/80/90) including therein the sample chamber (inside 10), the second imaging device (imaging device best seen in figure 2), the first laser source (laser source 30) and the mass spectrometer (as seen fig. 3, note: paragraph [0033] teaches imaging element within the ion source enclosure or alternatively imaging device, illumination device and laser source can also be positioned externally).
Overney modifies the combined device by suggesting laser, sample chamber and imaging device all within an enclosure.
Since both inventions are directed towards laser desorption ionization methods, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to position the components inside an enclosure instead of without because it would lead to the predictable result of each component performing it’s intended function. That is, as evident from paragraph [0033] elements may be either within or external to the ion source enclosure with no change in operation of the component.
.
Relevant art:
Spengler et al. (Spengler et al., “Postionization of Laser-Desorbed Organic and Inorganic Compounds in a Time of flight Mass Spectrometer”, Analytical Instrumentation, 1988) teaches laser desorption and post ionization of organic and inorganic compounds, however Spengler uses separate samples for laser desorption and post-ionization of organic and inorganic compounds.
Zare (USPN 4,988,879) teaches laser desorption and laser ionization of organic materials.
Koeppen et al. (US pgPub 2016/0005578) teaches laser desorption and post ionization of organic material using a soft ionization source and inorganic material using a hard ionization source ([0002]).
Cheung et al. (US pgPub 2018/0190478) teaches “the ionization core is configured to provide the inorganic ions and the organic ions to the mass analyzer either sequentially or simultaneously” ([0006]).
Taghioskoui (US pgPub 2020/0015717) teaches in figure 29C an IR laser (IR laser may be 700 nanometers (nm) to 1 millimeter (mm) of the spectrum) may ablate the sample to produce a plume and then a second UV laser may ionize the ablated plume 306 ([0262])
Schultz et al. (US pgPub 2010/0200742) teaches laser desorption and laser post-ionization of a sample that may be organic or inorganic (abstract, [0056]). The desorption laser source may be UV or IR ([0015]).
Franzen (US pgPub 2006/0097143) teaches laser desorption and post-ionization of proteins([0029] and figure 2)
Thomson et al. (US pgPub 2003/0111600) teaches decoupling vaporization and ionization steps in a laser desorption chemical ionization device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
1 Alternatively, the claim would be obvious because multiple locations are disclosed to be identified, therefore repeating the process would be obvious such that all defects/foreign matter may be analyzed.
2 Alternatively, the claim would be obvious because multiple locations are disclosed to be identified, therefore repeating the process would be obvious such that all defects/foreign matter may be analyzed.