DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/12/26 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive. The remarks argue the mapping of Parker’s field free tube (902) to the claimed “protective unit” is misplaced because it is configured to be actively biased to funnel secondary electrons to the detector, rather than the claimed functionality of being “configured to introduce a change in one or more properties of electrons emitted from the sample, thereby preventing the electrons emitted from the sample from reaching the one or more sensing regions”. However, Parker’s system aims to funnel the secondary electrons to the SE detector, not a different detector (Parker’s system lacks an x-ray detector). Li is relied upon to teach a further x-ray sensor, which is what the claims require to have the sensing regions (“the x-ray sensor comprising one or more sensing regions”). Additionally, it is noted that the limitation recites an intended use, based on voltages applied to the components. It is noted that 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. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
The remarks argue that there is no explanation of how the x-ray detector of Li is incorporated into the teachings of Parker, and that if they were combined, the secondary electrons would be directed to both the electron and x-ray detectors. However, it is noted that Li uses an auxiliary x-ray detector arranged circumferentially outside of the SE sensor (see Li, fig 2: 102b, circumferentially outside of 102a). Therefore, a skilled artisan would have understood that the combination of references would have suggested an additional x-ray sensor outside of the SE detector space, and thus that the field free tube (902) should preferentially funnel secondary electrons to the SE detector, and away from the x-ray sensing regions, since the secondary electrons were already being funneled into the SE detector. It is noted arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). MPEP §§ 2145, 2129, 2144.03, 716.01(c).
Although the cited reference(s) is/are different from the invention claimed, the language of Applicant's claims are sufficiently broad to reasonably read on the cited reference(s).
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-19, 21 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-19, 21 is/are rejected.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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:
PNG
media_image1.png
158
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-15, 17-19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Parker (US 20060145087 A1) in view of Li (US 20210066031 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Parker teaches a system for performing energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDX) sensing, the system comprising:
a charged particle column (see e.g. fig 4a: 501-513) having a lower distal tip (see fig 4a,b: 513), the charged particle column configured to generate and direct a charged a primary electron beam (211) through the lower distal tip and towards a sample (see at 907);
an
a protective unit (see FFT, 902) disposed between the lower distal tip and the sample and configured to introduce a change in one or more properties of electrons emitted from the sample (see e.g. [0090]), thereby preventing the electrons emitted from the sample from reaching the one or more
wherein the electrons are emitted from the sample due to an illuminating of the sample by the primary electron beam (see fig 4a),
Parker may fail to explicitly disclose the sensor comprising an x-ray sensor having sensing regions; and wherein the x-ray sensor is configured to (i) receive, by the one or more sensing regions, x-ray photons emitted from the sample due to the illuminating of the sample, and (ii) generate detection signals indicative of the x-ray photons.
However, Li teaches a system that enables detection of both electrons and x-rays, in order to obtain information about specimen surface morphology and material composition (see Li, [0002-03]), comprising a sensor comprising an SE (see fig 3: 102a) and x-ray sensors (see fig 3: 102b) having sensing regions (see fig 3); and wherein the x-ray sensor is configured to (i) receive, by the one or more sensing regions, x-ray photons emitted from the sample due to the illuminating of the sample (see e.g. [0062]), and (ii) generate detection signals indicative of the x-ray photons (see e.g. [0062]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Li in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to learn more information about the sample, including information about surface morphology and material composition using additional x-ray information, in the manner taught by Li.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teaching of Parker and Li teaches the one or more properties comprise speed and trajectory (natural result of electromagnetic fields to change trajectories of electrons; see also Parker, fig 4a, Li, fig 3).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teaching of Parker and Li teaches the protective unit comprises at least one biased electrode that is configured to introduce the change (see Parker, fig 4a: 902, [0090]).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teaching of Parker and Li teaches the x-ray sensor has a solid angle that exceeds 1 steradian (see Parker, fig 4a, [0039,41]).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teaching of Parker and Li teaches the x-ray sensor comprises an x-ray sensor opening (see Parker, fig 4a, inside 902) through which the primary electron beam is directed prior to reaching the sample and the protective unit comprises a protective unit opening aligned with the x-ray sensor opening (see fig 4a).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teaching of Parker and Li teaches at least one portion of the protective unit extends outside the x-ray sensor (see Parker, fig 4a, Li, fig 3, radially and axially).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teaching of Parker and Li teaches the EDX sensing unit is a windowless EDX sensing unit (window is optional, see Li, [0023]).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teaching of Parker and Li teaches the EDX sensing unit is without a window that faces a sample side of the EDX sensing unit (window is optional, see Li, [0023]), and wherein at least one portion of the at one biased electrode passes through an entirety of an x-ray sensor opening and extends outside the x-ray sensor (see Parker, fig 4a, Li, fig 3).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teaching of Parker and Li teaches the EDX sensing unit is a windowless EDX sensing unit (window is options, see Li, [0023]), and wherein at least one portion of the at one biased electrode is positioned within an x-ray sensor opening (see Parker, fig 4a).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teaching of Parker and Li teaches at least one portion of the at one biased electrode passes through an entirety of the x-ray sensor opening (see Parker fig 4a).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teaching of Parker and Li teaches the EDX sensing unit comprises a window (see Li, [0023]).
Regarding claim 13, Parker teaches a method for energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy EDX sensing, the method comprising:
illuminating a sample with a primary electron beam (see fig 4a: 211) generated by a charged particle column having a lower distal tip (see figs 4a,b: 513), wherein primary electron beam is directed through the lower distal tip towards the sample (see at 907) and the illuminating causes the sample to emit electrons (see 904) and x-ray photons (natural result of SEM);
introducing, by a protective unit (see FFT, 902) disposed between the lower distal tip and the sample (see fig 4a), a change in one or more properties of the emitted electrons (see e.g. [0090]), thereby preventing the emitted electrons from reaching one or more sensing regions of an
Parker may fail to explicitly disclose the sensor comprising an x-ray sensor having sensing regions; receiving, by the one or more sensing regions, the x-ray photons; and generating, by the x-ray sensor, detection signals indicative of the x-ray photons received by the one or more sensing regions.
However, Li teaches a system that enables detection of both electrons and x-rays, in order to obtain information about specimen surface morphology and material composition (see Li, [0002-03]), comprising a sensor comprising an SE (see fig 3: 102a) and x-ray sensors (see fig 3: 102b) having sensing regions (see fig 3); receiving, by the one or more sensing regions, the x-ray photons (see e.g. [0062]); and generating, by the x-ray sensor, detection signals indicative of the x-ray photons received by the one or more sensing regions (see e.g. [0062]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Li in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to learn more information about the sample, including information about surface morphology and material composition using additional x-ray information, in the manner taught by Li.
Claim 14 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claim 15, the combined teaching of Parker and Li teaches the EDX sensing unit is without a window that faces a sample side of the EDX sensing unit (window is optional, see Li, [0023]).
Claim 17 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 3.
Claim 18 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, the combined teaching of Parker and Li teaches there is a gap between the sample and the x-ray sensor (see Parker, fig 4a, Li, fig 3).
Regarding claim 21, Parker teaches a system for performing energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDX) sensing, the system comprising:
a charged particle column (see e.g. fig 4a: 501-513) having a lower distal tip (see fig 4a,b: 513), the charged particle column configured to generate and direct a charged a primary electron beam (211) through the lower distal tip and towards a sample (see at 907);
an
a protective unit (see e.g. FFT, 902) disposed between the lower distal tip and the sample and comprising an electrode surrounding a protective unit opening (see fig 4a), wherein the protective unit is configured to introduce an electrostatic field to create a voltage difference between the sample and the
wherein the system is configured such that the primary electron beam passes through the
Parker may fail to explicitly disclose the sensor comprising an x-ray sensor having sensing regions and an annular shape; and the x-ray sensor being configured to receive x-ray photons emitted from the sample and to generate detection signals indicative of the received x-ray photons.
However, Li teaches a system that enables detection of both electrons and x-rays, in order to obtain information about specimen surface morphology and material composition (see Li, [0002-03]), comprising a sensor comprising an SE (see fig 3: 102a) and x-ray sensors (see fig 3: 102b) having sensing regions (see fig 3) and annular shapes (see abstract, fig 3); and the x-ray sensor being configured to receive x-ray photons emitted from the sample (see e.g. [0062]) and to generate detection signals indicative of the received x-ray photons (see e.g. [0062]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Li in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to learn more information about the sample, including information about surface morphology and material composition using additional x-ray information, in the manner taught by Li.
Claim(s) 12, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Parker and Li, as applied to claim 1, 13 above, and further in view of Zaluzec (US 20120160999 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the combined teaching of Parker and Li may fail to explicitly disclose a thickness of the window does not exceed 1000 nanometers. However, Zaluzec teaches using windows to protect x-ray detectors from stray electrons and other types of unwanted radiation (see Zaluzec, [0038,54]), and teaches a known effective window having a thickness that does not exceed 1000 nanometers (see [0054]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Zaluzec in the system of the prior art, to provide the use of the known effective window and provide effective protection of the x-ray detectors from stray electrons and other types of unwanted radiation.
Regarding claim 16, the combined teaching of Parker and Li teaches the window faces a sample side of the EDX sensing unit (see e.g. Li, fig 3). The combined teaching of Parker and Li may fail to explicitly disclose a thickness of the window does not exceed 1000 nanometers. However, Zaluzec teaches using windows to protect x-ray detectors from stray electrons and other types of unwanted radiation (see Zaluzec, [0038,54]), and teaches a known effective window having a thickness that does not exceed 1000 nanometers (see [0054]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Zaluzec in the system of the prior art, to provide the use of the known effective window and provide effective protection of the x-ray detectors from stray electrons and other types of unwanted radiation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Choi whose telephone number is (571) 272 – 2689. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30 am – 6:00 pm M-F.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached on (571) 272 – 2328. 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.
/JAMES CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2878