DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
Claims 1, 12 and 20 have been amended to remove new matter. Consequently, the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) of claims 1, 12, and 20 have been withdrawn.
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
Claim 1 has been amended to teach “applying a gradient to the EBSD map based on a part of the generated electron energy distribution to generate an integrated EBSD map….” The arguments filed 9/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because Callahan teaches applying a gradient to the EBSD map based on a part of the generated electron energy distribution to generate an integrated EBSD map (pg. 1263, “Results and Discussion” energy-weighted ESBD pattern). The amendment does not overcome the prior art of record because being based on “a part of the generated electron energy distribution” does not necessarily exclude the other parts of the generated electron energy distribution. Additionally, the “part” of the generated electron energy distribution may be the part comprising the entire electron energy distribution. The same applies mutatis mutandis to claims 12, and 20, which have been similarly amended.
Regarding the arguments presented in the remarks filed 02/28/2025:
The remarks beginning on pg. 11 of the remarks filed 02/28/2025, regarding claim 7 are found to be unpersuasive because Barrett teaches “further comprising determining a correlation between a structure of a specimen and the first combined data set.” The first combined data set is interpreted to be the pixel signals S(i,j). The signals are used to produce an image of the gamma-ray emitting body (See Fig. 10), where the gamma-ray emitting body is interpreted to be a structure of a specimen. As such, the image provides a correlation between the structure of the object under examination and the signals.
The other arguments have been addressed in in the previous office action and involved new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments.
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 no obviousness.
Claims 1-7, 10, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrett, et. al. (US 5825033), hereinafter Barrett, in view of Callahan, et. al. (Dynamical Electron Backscatter Diffraction Patterns. Part I: Pattern Simulations. Microscopy and Microanalysis. 19, 1255-1265. 2013.), hereinafter Callahan.
Regarding claim 1, Barrett, et. al. teaches a method of performing energy sensitive imaging of ionizing radiation, comprising:
acquiring a first frame (first time interval of predetermined time intervals, Para. (18), Fig. 10 step 2), the first frame including a plurality of pixels (pixels, Para. (18)), each pixel of the plurality of pixels having an energy of detection (pixel signal S, Para. (18)) and a location (location of S within region of array, Para. (18), Fig. 10 step 2);
grouping, into at least one cluster (pixels in a neighborhood), pixels of the plurality of pixels having an energy of detection above a predetermined threshold (pixels registering signals above signal threshold, Seth, (18)) and a location (location of pixel) along with at least one other pixel also having an energy of detection above the predetermined threshold and being within a predetermined distance of the location (adjacent pixels, Para. (18)) ( see Para. (18,) Fig. 10);
summing the energy of detection of all pixels within the grouped at least one cluster to determine a cluster energy (Para. (18) last sentence, Fig. 10);
determining a location of the at least one cluster based on a distribution and an intensity of the summed energy of detection of the pixels in the at least one cluster (Para. (18), Fig. 10 steps 3 and 4);
Although Barrett does teach the at least one cluster, the determined cluster energy and the determined location of the at least one cluster, as shown above, Barrett does not teach generating an electron energy distribution correlating the cluster energy to a number of the at least one cluster; generating an electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) map based on the determined cluster energy and the determined location of the at least one cluster; and applying a gradient to the EBSD map based on the generated electron energy distribution to generate an integrated EBSD map describing the number of the at least one cluster, the location of the at least one cluster, and the cluster energy.
Callahan teaches generating an electron energy distribution correlating the electron energy to a number of electrons (energy distribution of electrons, pg. 1256, line 7, pg. 1260 section “Energy Distribution of the BSEs”, Fig. 6b);
generating an electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) map based on the determined electron energy and the determined location of the at least one electron (Figs. 5 and 8 and captions, “Results and Discussion” section beginning pg. 1263); and
applying a gradient to the EBSD map based on a part of the generated electron energy distribution to generate an integrated EBSD map describing the number of the at least one cluster, the location of the at least one cluster, and the cluster energy (pg. 1263, “Results and Discussion” energy-weighted ESBD pattern).
Callahan modifies Barrett by suggesting generating an electron energy distribution correlating the electron energy to a number of electrons; generating an electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) map based on the determined electron energy and the determined location of the at least one electron; and applying a gradient to the EBSD map based on the generated electron energy distribution to generate an integrated EBSD map describing the number, location, and energy of the electrons.
Since both inventions are directed to imaging of charged particles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Callahan because the background intensity shows the correct nonuniform behavior following naturally from the position-dependent energy weight factors, (Callahan, pg. 1264, left column).
Regarding claim 2, Barrett, et. al. teaches further comprising generating a first combined data set (pixel signals S(imp) for all I and j, Fig. 10 step 2) including the acquired first frame (predetermined time interval, (Para. (18), Fig. 10 step 2), the first frame including a catalog of the cluster energy of the at least one cluster and the location of the at least one cluster (Para. (18), Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 3, Barrett, et. al. teaches wherein the map of the at least one cluster is generated based on a number of the at least one cluster having the cluster energy exceeding a predetermined cluster energy for each determined location of the at least one cluster (Fig. 10, Para. (18)).
Barrett does not teach the EBSD map.
Callahan teaches the EBSD map (EBSD pattern, Fig. 8).
Callahan modifies Barrett by suggesting an EBSD map.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Callahan because an EBSD map has become a major characterization tool for materials science and geoscience (Callahan, Introduction, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 4, Barrett, et. al. teaches wherein the map is generated (Fig. 10, step 6) based on a number of the at least one cluster having the cluster energy below a predetermined cluster energy for each determined location of the at least one cluster (see (4), which states that “the same concept can be implemented using below-threshold signals (including negative signals) from a predetermined neighborhood of adjacent pixels intersecting, including, or contained in the cluster.”).
Barrett does not teach the EBSD map.
Callahan teaches the EBSD map (EBSD pattern, Fig. 8).
Callahan modifies Barrett by suggesting an EBSD map.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Callahan because an EBSD map has become a major characterization tool for materials science and geoscience (Callahan, Introduction, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 5, Barrett, et. al. teaches wherein the map is generated based on a number of the at least one cluster having the cluster energy within a predetermined cluster energy range (S(imp) greater than or equal to Sth(i,j), Para. (18), Fig. 10) for each determined location of the at least one cluster (Para. (18), Fig. 10 steps 3-6).
Barrett does not teach the EBSD map.
Callahan teaches the EBSD map (EBSD pattern, Fig. 8).
Callahan modifies Barrett by suggesting an EBSD map.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Callahan because an EBSD map has become a major characterization tool for materials science and geoscience (Callahan, Introduction, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, Barrett, et. al. teaches wherein the map is generated based on a corresponding energy of detection of said each pixel of the plurality of pixels grouped into the at least one cluster (Para. (18), Fig. 10).
Barrett does not teach the EBSD map.
Callahan teaches the EBSD map (EBSD pattern, Fig. 8).
Callahan modifies Barrett by suggesting an EBSD map.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Callahan because an EBSD map has become a major characterization tool for materials science and geoscience (Callahan, Introduction, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 7, Barrett, et. al. teaches further comprising determining a correlation between a structure of a specimen (image corresponding to spatial distribution of the source of radiation within the object under examination, Para. (3)) and the first combined data set (pixel signals S(i,j) that result from gamma radiation on the object under examination are used to produce the image/spatial distribution. See “Brief Summary of the invention and Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 10, Barrett, et. al. teaches wherein the location of said each pixel of the plurality of pixels and the determined location of the at least one cluster are stored as coordinates (pixel locations are stored using coordinates (i,j), Para. (18), and cluster location is stored using coordinates see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 11, Barrett, et. al. teaches further comprising, for a second acquired frame (second time interval of predetermined time intervals, Para. (18), Fig. 10 step 2) having a second plurality of pixels (pixels, Para. (18)), each pixel of the second plurality of pixels having an energy of detection (pixel signal S, Para. (18)) and a location (coordinates of S within region of array, Para. (18), Fig. 10 step 2), repeating the steps of grouping, into another at least one cluster (pixels in a neighborhood), said each pixel of the second plurality of pixels into at least one second cluster, summing the energy of detection of all pixels within the grouped at least one second cluster to determine a second cluster energy (Para. (18) last sentence, Fig. 10); determining a location of the at least one second cluster (Para. (18), Fig. 10), and generating a second map of the at least one second cluster (Fig. 10 step 4).
Barrett does not teach an EBSD map, generating a second electron energy distribution, and applying a gradient to the second EBSD map based on the electron energy distribution to generate a second integrated EBSD map.
Callahan teaches an EBSD map (EBSD pattern, Fig. 8), generating an electron energy distribution (energy distribution of electrons, pg. 1256, line 7, pg. 1260 section “Energy Distribution of the BSEs”, Fig. 6b), and applying a gradient to the second EBSD map based on the electron energy distribution to generate an integrated EBSD map (pg. 1263, “Results and Discussion” energy-weighted ESBD pattern).
Callahan modifies Barrett by suggesting an EBSD map.
Callahan modifies Barrett by suggesting an EBSD map, generating a second electron energy distribution, and applying a gradient to the second EBSD map based on the electron energy distribution to generate a second integrated EBSD map.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Callahan because an EBSD map has become a major characterization tool for materials science and geoscience (Callahan, Introduction, first paragraph). Furthermore, the background intensity shows the correct nonuniform behavior following naturally from the position-dependent energy weight factors, (Callahan, pg. 1264, left column).
Regarding claim 20, Barrett, et. al. teaches a detector apparatus, comprising:
an array of a plurality of detector elements (Para. (6), 0.15 cm thick slab of Cd0.8Zn0.2Te incorporating a 48x48 array of 125 um square-pixel electrodes on one side produced by photolithography), each detector element of the plurality of detector elements being configured to detect ionizing radiation and to convert the detected ionizing radiation into a photo charge value corresponding to an intensity of the detected ionizing radiation (Para. (5), (6)); and
processing circuitry (Tustin analog-to-digital converter controlled by a personal computer, Para. (8)) configured to
acquiring a first frame (first time interval of predetermined time intervals, Para. (18) Fig. 10 step 2), the first frame including a plurality of pixels (pixels, Para. (18)), each pixel of the plurality of pixels having an energy of detection (pixel signal S, Para. (18)) and a location (location of S within region of array, Para. (18), Fig. 10 step 2);
grouping, into at least one cluster (pixels in a neighborhood), pixels of the plurality of pixels having an energy of detection above a predetermined threshold (pixels registering signals above signal threshold, Sth, Para. (18)) and a location (location of pixel) along with at least one other pixel also having an energy of detection above the predetermined threshold and being within a predetermined distance of the location (adjacent pixels, Para. (18)) ( see Para. (18), Fig. 10);
summing the energy of detection of all pixels within the grouped at least one cluster to determine a cluster energy (Para. (18) last sentence, Fig. 10);
determining a location of the at least one cluster based on a distribution and an intensity of the summed energy of detection of the pixels in the at least one cluster (designating one pixel among the cluster as the central pixel based on signal intensity distribution of the pixels, Para. (18), Fig. 10 steps 3 and 4); and
generating an image of the at least one cluster based on the determined cluster energy and the determined location of the at least one cluster (Fig. 10 step 4).
Although Barrett does teach the at least one cluster, the determined cluster energy and the determined location of the at least one cluster, as shown above, Barrett does not teach generating an electron energy distribution correlating the cluster energy to a number of the at least one cluster; generating an electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) map based on the determined cluster energy and the determined location of the at least one cluster; and applying a gradient to the EBSD map based on the generated electron energy distribution to generate an integrated EBSD map describing the number of the at least one cluster, the location of the at least one cluster, and the cluster energy.
Callahan teaches generating an electron energy distribution correlating the electron energy to a number of electrons (energy distribution of electrons, pg. 1256, line 7, pg. 1260 section “Energy Distribution of the BSEs”, Fig. 6b);
generating an electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) map based on the determined electron energy and the determined location of the at least one electron (Figs. 5 and 8 and captions, “Results and Discussion” section beginning pg. 1263); and
applying a gradient to the EBSD map based on the generated electron energy distribution to generate an integrated EBSD map describing the number of the at least one cluster, the location of the at least one cluster, and the cluster energy (pg. 1263, “Results and Discussion” energy-weighted ESBD pattern).
Callahan modifies Barrett by suggesting generating an electron energy distribution correlating the electron energy to a number of electrons; generating an electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) map based on the determined electron energy and the determined location of the at least one electron; and applying a gradient to the EBSD map based on the generated electron energy distribution to generate an integrated EBSD map describing the number, location, and energy of the electrons.
Since both inventions are directed to imaging of charged particles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Callahan because the background intensity shows the correct nonuniform behavior following naturally from the position-dependent energy weight factors, (Callahan, pg. 1264, left column).
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 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrett, et. al. (US 5825033) in view of Callahan (Dynamical Electron Backscatter Diffraction Patterns. Part I: Pattern Simulations. Microscopy and Microanalysis. 19, 1255-1265. 2013.), further in view of Randolph, et. al. (US 20180136147).
Regarding claim 8, although Barrett, et. al. teaches data collection at multiple time intervals, resulting in plural data sets, Barrett, et. al. does not explicitly teach further comprising scanning a beam of electrons over the specimen in a pattern, the beam of electrons having a plurality of dwell positions located over the specimen; acquiring the EBSD map of the electrons for each position of the plurality of dwell positions; and generating a second combined data set including the EBSD map of the electrons for said each position of the plurality of dwell positions.
Randolph, et. al. teaches further comprising scanning a beam of electrons (electron beam 608, [0047]) over the specimen (sample 612, [0047]) in a pattern, the beam of electrons having a plurality of dwell positions located over the specimen ([0047]);
acquiring the EBSD map of the electrons for each position of the plurality of dwell positions ( [0048]); and
generating a second combined data set (data/data table, [0048]) including the EBSD map of the electrons for said each position of the plurality of dwell positions ([0048]).
Randolph, et. al. modifies Barrett, et. al. by incorporating scanning an electron beam over a sample in a pattern with dwell positions, acquiring the EBSD map of the electrons for each of the dwell positions, and generating a data set including the EBSD map.
Since both inventions are directed toward radiation-based imaging of a sample, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Barrett, et. al. with the teachings of Randolph, et. al. for the purpose of mapping surfaces of a sample for obtaining high-resolution images of the sample (Randolph, et. al., [0014])
Regarding claim 9, although Barrett, et. al. teaches data collection at multiple time intervals, resulting in plural data sets, Barret, et. al. fails to explicitly teach further comprising generating the integrated EBSD map including the second combined data set having the EBSD map of the electrons for said each position of the plurality of dwell positions.
Callahan teaches the integrated EDSB map (pg. 1263, “Results and Discussion” energy-weighted ESBD pattern).
Randolph, et. al. teaches further comprising generating an EBSD map including the second combined data set having the energy-selective image of the electrons for said each position of the plurality of dwell positions ([0048]).
Callahan modifies Barrett by suggesting the integrated EDSB map. Randolph, et. al. modifies Barrett, et. al. by incorporating generating an EBSD map including a data set having the energy-selective image of the electrons for each dwell position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Callahan because the background intensity shows the correct nonuniform behavior following naturally from the position-dependent energy weight factors, (Callahan, pg. 1264, left column). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Randolph, et. al. for the purpose of mapping surfaces of a sample for obtaining high-resolution images of the sample (Randolph, et. al., [0014])
Claims 12-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrett, et. al. (US 5825033) in view of Callahan (Dynamical Electron Backscatter Diffraction Patterns. Part I: Pattern Simulations. Microscopy and Microanalysis. 19, 1255-1265. 2013.), further in view of Brown, et. al. (US 20160064184).
Regarding claim 12, Barrett, et. al. teaches a detector apparatus (detector module/detector array, Para. (6), Fig. 3), comprising:
an array of a plurality of detector elements, each element of the plurality of detector elements including a monolithic active pixel sensor (MAPS) (0.15 cm thick slab of Cd0.8Zn0.2Te incorporating a 48x48 array of 125 um square-pixel electrodes [monolithic active pixel sensor] on one side produced by photolithography, Para. (6)), and
processing circuitry (Tustin analog-to-digital converter controlled by a personal computer, Para. (8)) configured to
acquire a first frame (first time interval of predetermined time intervals, Para. (18) Fig. 10 step 2), the first frame including a plurality of pixels (pixels, (18)), each pixel of the plurality of pixels having an energy of detection (pixel signal S, Para. (18)) and a location (location of S within region of array, Para. (18), Fig. 10 step 2);
group, into at least one cluster (pixels in a neighborhood), pixels of the plurality of pixels having an energy of detection above a predetermined threshold (pixels registering signals above signal threshold, Sth, Para. (18)) and a location (location of pixel) along with at least one other pixel also having an energy of detection above the predetermined threshold and being within a predetermined distance of the location (adjacent pixels, Para. (18)) ( see Para. (18,) Fig. 10);
sum the energy of detection of all pixels within the grouped at least one cluster to determine a cluster energy (Para. (18) last sentence, Fig. 10);
determine a location of the at least one cluster based on a distribution and an intensity of the summed energy of detection of the pixels in the at least one cluster (designating one pixel among the cluster as the central pixel based on signal intensity distribution of the pixels, Para. (18), Fig. 10 steps 3 and 4); and
generate an image of the at least one cluster based on the determined cluster energy and the determined location of the at least one cluster (Fig. 10 step 4).
Although Barrett, et. al. teaches a monolithic active pixel sensor (MAPS), Barrett, et. al. does not teach each element of the plurality of detector elements including a monolithic active pixel sensor (MAPS) having an epitaxial silicon layer configured to be exposed to backscattered electrons and to prevent charge from being trapped at a surface thereof. Although Barrett does teach the at least one cluster, the determined cluster energy and the determined location of the at least one cluster, as shown above, Barrett does not teach generating an electron energy distribution correlating the cluster energy to a number of the at least one cluster; generating an electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) map based on the determined cluster energy and the determined location of the at least one cluster; and applying a gradient to the EBSD map based on the generated electron energy distribution to generate an integrated EBSD map describing the number of the at least one cluster, the location of the at least one cluster, and the cluster energy.
Brown, et. al. teaches each element (simplified pixel 400, [0068]) of the plurality of detector elements ([0068], simplified pixel 400 of an electron sensor (e.g. sensor 310), where each pixel includes elements 457, 455, n+ floating diffusion FD, 410, and 460.) having an epitaxial silicon layer (epitaxial silicon layer 457, [0070]) configured to be exposed to backscattered electrons ([0069]-[0072], see Fig. 4a) and to prevent charge from being trapped at a surface thereof ([0072], the floating diffusion FD collects electrons generated in the pixel such that the electrons are not trapped at the surface of the epitaxial silicon layer).
Callahan teaches generating an electron energy distribution correlating the electron energy to a number of electrons (energy distribution of electrons, pg. 1256, line 7, pg. 1260 section “Energy Distribution of the BSEs”, Fig. 6b);
generating an electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) map based on the determined electron energy and the determined location of the at least one electron (Figs. 5 and 8 and captions, “Results and Discussion” section beginning pg. 1263); and
applying a gradient to the EBSD map based on the generated electron energy distribution to generate an integrated EBSD map describing the number of the at least one cluster, the location of the at least one cluster, and the cluster energy (pg. 1263, “Results and Discussion” energy-weighted ESBD pattern).
Brown, et. al. modifies Barrett, et. al. such that the MAPS of Barrett, et. al. has an epitaxial silicon layer configured to be exposed to backscattered electrons and to prevent charge from being trapped at the surface of the epitaxial silicon layer. Callahan modifies Barrett by suggesting generating an electron energy distribution correlating the electron energy to a number of electrons; generating an electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) map based on the determined electron energy and the determined location of the at least one electron; and applying a gradient to the EBSD map based on the generated electron energy distribution to generate an integrated EBSD map describing the number, location, and energy of the electrons.
Since all inventions are directed toward radiation-based imaging of a sample, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Barrett with the teachings of Brown, et. al. for the purpose of more effectively collecting charge for reading out imaging signals by utilizing a buried layer (Brown, et. al., [0051]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Callahan because the background intensity shows the correct nonuniform behavior following naturally from the position-dependent energy weight factors, (Callahan, pg. 1264, left column).
Regarding claim 13, Barrett, et. al. teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to generate the map based on a number of the at least one cluster having the cluster energy exceeding a predetermined cluster energy for each determined location of the at least one cluster (Para. (18), Fig. 10).
Barrett does not teach the EBSD map.
Callahan teaches the EBSD map (EBSD pattern, Fig. 8).
Callahan modifies Barrett by suggesting an EBSD map.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Callahan because an EBSD map has become a major characterization tool for materials science and geoscience (Callahan, Introduction, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 14, Barrett, et. al. teaches wherein the MAPS (0.15 cm thick slab of Cd0.8Zn0.2Te incorporating a 48x48 array of 125 um square-pixel electrodes [monolithic active pixel sensor] on one side produced by photolithography, Para. (6)) is configured to direct charge to an image sensor charge collection region of the MAPS (Para. (6)-(7), charge generated in the detector material and recorded at each pixel was stored on an integrating capacitor 30 in a capacitive-feedback transimpedance amplifier, or CTIA circuit. All pixels integrated simultaneously.).
Regarding claim 16, although Barrett, et. al. discloses the MAPS, Barrett, et. al. fails to explicitly teach wherein the MAPS is configured to operate in synchronization with a scanning pattern of a beam of electrons.
Brown, et. al. teaches wherein the MAPS ([0016] electron detector comprising an array of pixels and multiple analog-to-digital converters) is configured to operate in synchronization with a scanning pattern of a beam of electrons (Fig. 2, steps 204-216).
Brown, et. al. modifies Barrett, et. al. by incorporating a MAPS which operates synchronously with a scanning pattern of an electron beam.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Barrett, et. al. with the teachings of Brown, et. al. for the purpose of providing control of the timing scheme for performing electron beam imaging (Brown, et. al., [0040], Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 17, Barrett, et. al. teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to generate a first combined data set including the acquired first frame, the first frame including a catalog of the cluster energy of at the least one cluster and the location of the at least one cluster (Para. (18), Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 18, Barrett, et. al. teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine a correlation between a structure of a specimen and the first combined data set (Para. (3), Para. (18), Fig. 10).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barret, et. al. (US 5825033) in view of Callahan (Dynamical Electron Backscatter Diffraction Patterns. Part I: Pattern Simulations. Microscopy and Microanalysis. 19, 1255-1265. 2013.), further in view of Lahav, et. al. (US 20140226047).
Regarding claim 15, although Barrett, et. al. teaches a MAPS, Barrett, et. al. fails to teach wherein the MAPS is configured to have a global shutter readout mode.
Lahav, et. al. teaches wherein the MAPS is configured to have a global shutter readout mode (Abstract, Para. [0008]-[0010], [0025]-[0029]).
Lahav, et. al. modifies Barrett, et. al. by suggesting a global shutter and readout mode.
Since both inventions are directed toward image sensors, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Barrett, et. al. with the teachings of Lahav, et. al. for the purpose of improving the control and timing of transferring image signals for readout within an image sensor (Lahav, et. al., Para. [0028]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrett, et. al. (US 5825033) in view of Callahan (Dynamical Electron Backscatter Diffraction Patterns. Part I: Pattern Simulations. Microscopy and Microanalysis. 19, 1255-1265. 2013.), in view of Brown, et. al. (US 20160064184), further in view of Randolph, et. al. (US 20180136147).
Regarding claim 19, Barrett fails to teach wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to scan a beam of electrons over the specimen in a pattern, the beam of electrons having a plurality of dwell positions located over the specimen; acquire, for each position of the plurality of dwell positions, the EBSD map of the electrons; and generate a second combined data set including the EBSD map of the electrons for said each position of the plurality of dwell positions.
Randolph, et. al. teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to scan a beam of electrons (electron beam 608, [0047] generated by electron column 606 and scan control 614 controls relative movement between electron beam 608 and sample 612) over the specimen (sample 612, [0047]) in a pattern, the beam of electrons having a plurality of dwell positions located over the specimen ([0047]);
acquire, for each position of the plurality of dwell positions, the EBSD map of the electrons ( [0048]); and
generate a second combined data set (data/data table, [0048]) including the EBSD map of the electrons for said each position of the plurality of dwell positions ([0048]).
Randolph, et. al. modifies Barrett, et. al. by incorporating scanning an electron beam over a sample in a pattern with dwell positions, acquiring the EBSD map of the electrons for each of the dwell positions, and generating a data set including the EBSD map.
Since both inventions are directed toward radiation-based imaging of a sample, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Barrett, et. al. with the teachings of Randolph, et. al. for the purpose of mapping surfaces of a sample for obtaining high-resolution images of the sample (Randolph, et. al., [0014])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E TANDY whose telephone number is (703)756-1720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 5712722293. 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.
LAURA E TANDY
Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881