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
Objection to the Drawings
In view of the amendment to Figs. 1, 2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D, the objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 USC §102 and §103
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1 is anticipated by Tsuji, et. al. (US 20120193550), hereinafter “Tsuji”. Claim 1 has been amended to teach “a support member having one end extending to another end, the one end of the support member connected to another end of the ion pump and the another end of the support member directly connected to the lens barrel”.
Applicant asserts in the remarks filed 04/27/2026 that with the present amendment, the claimed invention is clearly differentiated from Fig. 19 of Tsuji (see pg. 9 of the remarks).
The remarks are found to be unpersuasive because, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, Tsuji teaches all of the limitations of the claim and therefore anticipates the claim as amended. In particular, Tsuji teaches:
a support member having one end extending to another end, (See Fig. 19. 50, 51, 52, 49, and top part of 11 are together interpreted to be the support member because these components collectively support and connect the ion pump(s) 2 and lens barrel. This interpreted support member extends from one end (50) to another end (top of 11) ) the one end of the support member connected to another end of the ion pump (50 connects to the end of ion pumps 2A and 2B that is not the end of the ion pump connected to the lens barrel via flange (opposite side), as seen in Fig 19) and the another end of the support member directly connected to the lens barrel (the top part of 11 directly connects around the bottom part of lens barrel 1, as seen in Fig. 19).
The claim language does not preclude the support member from including the base which surrounds and supports the lens barrel from the bottom in addition to elements (49-52).
All of 49-52 and the top of 11 can be interpreted as the support member because these elements collectively support the lens barrel and the ion pumps. Consequently, the claim is anticipated by Tsuji.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsuji, et. al. (US 20120193550 A1), hereinafter Tsuji.
Regarding claim 1, Tsuji teaches a charged particle beam device (charged particle radiation device, [0001]) comprising:
a lens barrel (lens barrel 1, [0050], Fig. 1) that irradiates a charged particle beam to a sample ([0050]);
an ion pump has one end that is directly connected to the lens barrel via a flange (Fig. 19, Fig. 16, flange 41 connects one end of ion pump 2 to lens barrel 1), and evacuates an inside of the lens barrel by discharging a gas (ion pumps 2, [0050], Fig. 1); and
a support member having one end extending to another end, (See Fig. 19. 50, 51, 52, 49, and top part of 11 are together interpreted to be the support member because these components collectively support and connect the ion pump(s) 2 and lens barrel. This interpreted support member extends from one end (50) to another end (top of 11) ) the one end of the support member connected to another end of the ion pump (50 connects to the end of ion pumps 2A and 2B that is not the end of the ion pump connected to the lens barrel via flange (opposite side), as seen in Fig 19) and the another end of the support member directly connected to the lens barrel (the top part of 11 directly connects around the bottom part of lens barrel 1, as seen in Fig. 19), wherein
the support member includes a viscoelastic body (interpreted support member includes viscoelastic material sheet 51, Fig. 19, [0132]) that is disposed substantially parallel to a central axis of the lens barrel (51 is disposed substantially parallel to central axis of lens barrel 1, Fig. 19).
Regarding claim 3, Tsuji teaches wherein the charged particle beam device includes a plurality of the ion pumps (ion pumps 2A, 2B, and 2C, Fig. 19, [00130]), the one end of the support member is connected to one of the plurality of ion pumps (In Fig. 19 50 is connected to 2A, for exampe).
Regarding claim 5, Tsuji teaches further comprising a second support member (41-43 and 49-52 which support ion pump 2C, for example, see Fig. 19 and Fig. 16, [0127], [0132]), wherein referring to the ion pump to which the one end of the support member is connected as a first ion pump (50 of the interpreted support member of claim 1 connecting to 2A, such that 2A is referred as the first ion pump, Fig 19), the second support member is connected to one of the ion pumps other than the first ion pump and the support member (interpreted support member of ion pump 2C is second support member since it is not connected to the first ion pump and support member, Fig. 19), and includes a viscoelastic body disposed substantially parallel to a central axis of the lens barrel (interpreted support member of ion pump 2C has viscoelastic material sheet 51, Fig. 19, [0130]-[0132]).
Regarding claim 7, Tsuji teaches wherein the second support member is connected to the lens barrel (interpreted second support member (41-43 and 49-52 supporting ion pump 2C, as seen in Fig. 19 and 16), connects to lens barrel 1 via flange 41).
Regarding claim 10, Tsuji teaches wherein the viscoelastic body has a sheet shape (viscoelastic material sheet is sheet-shaped, [0132], Fig. 19).
Regarding claim 11, Tsuji teaches wherein the support member includes a plurality of holding members at the another end thereof, and is connected to a plurality of portions of the lens barrel by the holding members (moveable-side support plates 18 are interpreted as the holding members of the support member as they are at the another end of the support member and connect the vibration damping members 19 of the interpreted support member to a plurality of portions of the lens barrel, Fig. 19, Fig. 15).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji (US 20120193550 A1) in view of Uji (JP 2008052947 A).
Regarding claim 2, Tsuji teaches the support member (flange 41, pipe 42, and chamber 43, [0127], Fig. 16, and ion pump support frame 49, ion pump movable-side support plate 50, viscoelastic material sheet 51, ion pump stationary-side support plate 52, [0132], Fig. 19,) with a viscoelastic body (viscoelastic material sheet 51).
Tsuji does not teach a viscoelastic body disposed so as to be substantially orthogonal to a central axis of the lens barrel.
Uji teaches a viscoelastic body disposed so as to be substantially orthogonal to a central axis of the lens barrel (damper 14B and/or 14C, [0017] is disposed substantially orthogonal to central axis of electron optical column 1, Fig. 2).
Uji modifies Tsuji by suggesting the support member of Tsuji further includes a viscoelastic body that is substantially orthogonal to a central axis of the lens barrel.
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 Uji because by placing viscoelastic dampers interposed in the space between the yoke and the case of the ion pump, the inherent vibration of the lens barrel is suppressed by the damping capacity of the dampers, (Uji, [0017]-[0018]).
Regarding claim 4, Tsuji teaches the support member (flange 41, pipe 42, and chamber 43, [0127], Fig. 16, and ion pump support frame 49, ion pump movable-side support plate 50, viscoelastic material sheet 51, ion pump stationary-side support plate 52, [0132], supporting ion pump 2A, Fig. 19) with a viscoelastic body (viscoelastic material sheet 51).
Tsuji does not teach a viscoelastic body disposed so as to be substantially orthogonal to a central axis of the lens barrel.
Uji teaches a viscoelastic body disposed so as to be substantially orthogonal to a central axis of the lens barrel (damper 14B and/or 14C, [0017] is disposed substantially orthogonal to central axis of electron optical column 1, Fig. 2).
Uji modifies Tsuji by suggesting the support member of Tsuji further includes a viscoelastic body that is substantially orthogonal to a central axis of the lens barrel.
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 Uji because by placing viscoelastic dampers interposed in the space between the yoke and the case of the ion pump, the inherent vibration of the lens barrel is suppressed by the damping capacity of the dampers, (Uji, [0017]-[0018]).
Regarding claim 6, Tsuji teaches the support member (flange 41, pipe 42, and chamber 43, [0127], Fig. 16, and ion pump support frame 49, ion pump movable-side support plate 50, viscoelastic material sheet 51, ion pump stationary-side support plate 52, [0132], supporting ion pump 2A, Fig. 19) with a viscoelastic body (viscoelastic material sheet 51).
Tsuji does not teach a viscoelastic body disposed so as to be substantially orthogonal to a central axis of the lens barrel.
Uji teaches a viscoelastic body disposed so as to be substantially orthogonal to a central axis of the lens barrel (damper 14B and/or 14C, [0017] is disposed substantially orthogonal to central axis of electron optical column 1, Fig. 2).
Uji modifies Tsuji by suggesting the support member of Tsuji further includes a viscoelastic body that is substantially orthogonal to a central axis of the lens barrel.
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 Uji because by placing viscoelastic dampers interposed in the space between the yoke and the case of the ion pump, the inherent vibration of the lens barrel is suppressed by the damping capacity of the dampers, (Uji, [0017]-[0018]).
Regarding claim 8, Tsuji teaches the support member (flange 41, pipe 42, and chamber 43, [0127], Fig. 16, and ion pump support frame 49, ion pump movable-side support plate 50, viscoelastic material sheet 51, ion pump stationary-side support plate 52, [0132], supporting ion pump 2A, Fig. 19,) with a viscoelastic body (viscoelastic material sheet 51).
Tsuji does not teach a viscoelastic body disposed so as to be substantially orthogonal to a central axis of the lens barrel.
Uji teaches a viscoelastic body disposed so as to be substantially orthogonal to a central axis of the lens barrel (damper 14B and/or 14C, [0017] is disposed substantially orthogonal to central axis of electron optical column 1, Fig. 2).
Uji modifies Tsuji by suggesting the support member of Tsuji further includes a viscoelastic body that is substantially orthogonal to a central axis of the lens barrel.
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 Uji because by placing viscoelastic dampers interposed in the space between the yoke and the case of the ion pump, the inherent vibration of the lens barrel is suppressed by the damping capacity of the dampers, (Uji, [0017]-[0018]).
Regarding claim 9, Tsuji teaches the second support member (flange 41, pipe 42, and chamber 43, [0127], Fig. 16, and ion pump support frame 49, ion pump movable-side support plate 50, viscoelastic material sheet 51, ion pump stationary-side support plate 52, [0132], supporting ion pump 2C, Fig. 19) with a viscoelastic body (viscoelastic material sheet 51).
Tsuji does not teach a viscoelastic body disposed so as to be substantially orthogonal to a central axis of the lens barrel.
Uji teaches a viscoelastic body disposed so as to be substantially orthogonal to a central axis of the lens barrel (damper 14B and/or 14C, [0017] is disposed substantially orthogonal to central axis of electron optical column 1, Fig. 2).
Uji modifies Tsuji by suggesting the second support member of Tsuji further includes a viscoelastic body that is substantially orthogonal to a central axis of the lens barrel.
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 Uji because by placing viscoelastic dampers interposed in the space between the yoke and the case of the ion pump, the inherent vibration of the lens barrel is suppressed by the damping capacity of the dampers, (Uji, [0017]-[0018]).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji (US 20120193550 A1) in view of Kasuya, et. al. (US 20160233050 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Tsuji teaches the support member (41-43 and 49-52 of ion pump 2A, Fig. 19, 16, [0127], [0132]).
Tsuji does not explicitly teach wherein the support member is partially or entirely made of a non-magnetic material.
Kasuya teaches partially or entirely made of a non-magnetic material (a non-magnetic material, for example, stainless steel, [0061]).
Kasuya modifies Tsuji by suggesting that the support member of Tsuji is made of a non-magnetic material such as stainless steel.
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 Kasuya because using a non-magnetic material avoids disturbing the magnetic field applied to the pump, (Kasuya, [0061]).
Regarding claim 13, Tsuji teaches the second support member (41-43 and 49-52 of ion pump 2C, Fig. 19, 16, [0127], [0132]).
Tsuji does not explicitly teach wherein the support member is partially or entirely made of a non-magnetic material.
Kasuya teaches partially or entirely made of a non-magnetic material (a non-magnetic material, for example, stainless steel, [0061]).
Kasuya modifies Tsuji by suggesting that the support member of Tsuji is made of a non-magnetic material such as stainless steel.
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 Kasuya because using a non-magnetic material avoids disturbing the magnetic field applied to the pump, (Kasuya, [0061]).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights