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 6/25/26 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. The amendment necessitates the new ground(s) of rejection presented due to the added language in the independent claim(s).
Regarding the arguments that Benner does not disclose an aperture that defines a boundary of the vacuum chamber, but it is noted that the claims are broad enough to read on a constructively defined boundary at the aperture of Benner. The degree of vacuum sealing at the boundary nor the structure of the aperture is explicitly claimed (see e.g. further narrowing structure region of aperture, fig 2 of the application, near arrow for 76a). 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) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 4-7, 10, 14-15 is/are withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-9, 11-13, 16-20 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, 3, 8-9, 12-13, 16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Benner et al. (US 20120326030 A1) [hereinafter Benner] in view of Ichimura et al. (US 20180019096 A1) [hereinafter Ichimura] and Katagiri et al. (US 20070102650 A1) [hereinafter Katagiri].
Regarding claim 1, Benner teaches a charged particle microscope for imaging a specimen, the charged particle microscope comprising:
a vacuum enclosure (vacuum enclosure required for operation of TEM, note fig 1: 7, 17, etc);
a specimen holder (see fig 3: 61) movable into an imaging position intersecting an optical axis (see fig 1);
a beam source (see 7) configured to emit a charged particle beam along the optical axis (see fig 1);
a magnetic yoke (see 29) comprising a first pole piece and a second pole piece (see upper and lower sections of fig 1: 29), the first pole piece including a first aperture and the second pole piece including a second aperture (see apertures formed in the interior space of 29 by hole 26), the first aperture and the second aperture being aligned with the optical axis (see fig 1);
a vacuum chamber (see vacuum enclosure, fig 1: 29) within the vacuum enclosure (see fig 1, required for enclosing all the components), the vacuum chamber configured to receive the specimen holder in the imaging position (see fig 1); and
Benner may fail to explicitly a sorption pump disposed in the vacuum chamber and configured to lower a pressure in the vacuum chamber, wherein a vacuum condition in the vacuum chamber is independent from a vacuum condition in the enclosure.
However, the use of external pumps used with sorption pumps to provide charged particle microscopy vacuum pressures was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Ichimura teaches a system for enhancing vacuum performance in charged particle beam systems, comprising a sorption pump (see [0096,43]) disposed in the vacuum chamber (required for operation of system) to further lower a pressure in the specimen chamber (see [0096,43]). 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 Ichimura in the system of the prior art, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to enhance vacuum operation of the system, including trying to use the known effective getter material inside the vacuum chamber where said vacuum is desired, in the manner taught by Ichimura. Therefore, the combined teaching discloses a vacuum condition in the vacuum chamber is independent from a vacuum condition in the enclosure (natural result of vacuum enclosure, see fig 1, claim 31).
The combined teaching of Benner and Ichimura may fail to explicitly disclose the degree (though not explicitly claimed) to which the vacuum condition in the vacuum chamber is independent from a vacuum condition in the enclosure; wherein the first aperture and the second aperture define a boundary of the vacuum condition in the vacuum chamber.
However, it is noted that Benner calls the interior region 31 a vacuum area, and notes that the cooling plate 43_1 can withdraw contaminants from the vacuum area (see Benner, [0040]), suggesting some degree of gettering effect specifically targeting this interior vacuum area. Where the boundary of a vacuum condition (degree of vacuum) is not explicitly specified by the prior art, but under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the apertures in Benner (see fig 1, in 25) can be constructively defined as a boundary region. It is also noted that the use multiple vacuum regions, having boundary aperture regions, to improve vacuum isolation was well known in the art. For example, Katagiri teaches a system to use multiple vacuum regions with sorption pumps (NEGs) to enable auxiliary and/or differential pumping and improve vacuum maintenance (see Katagiri, e.g. [0012-13], e.g. fig 9: 86), wherein said regions have apertures that define boundaries of their respective vacuum conditions (see fig 9, between 85, 86, 87). 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 Katagiri in the system of the prior art, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve vacuum isolation and maintenance, in the manner taught by Katagiri. It is also noted 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.
Regarding claim 3, the combined teaching of Benner and Ichimura teaches the magnetic yoke (see Benner, see fig 1: 29) is configured to concentrate magnetic field lines to guide a charged particle beam along the optical axis in the vacuum chamber (see fig 1, [0037], focusing the electron beam).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teaching of Benner and Ichimura teaches the sorption pump is disposed within a volume defined by outermost magnetic field lines of the concentrated magnetic field lines (entire apparatus permeated with magnetic field lines inside the chamber, see Benner, fig 1), and wherein the sorption pump is less magnetic than the magnetic yoke (magnetic yoke is magnetized, so more magnetic than non-magnetic vanadium glass, see Ichimura, abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Benner teaches a magnetic assembly for a charged particle microscope defining an optical axis, the magnetic assembly comprising:
at least one magnetic yoke (see fig 1: 29) configured to concentrate magnetic field lines for guiding a charged particle beam along the optical axis (see fig 1, [0037]), the magnetic yoke defining a specimen chamber (see fig 1), the magnetic yoke defining at least one pumping port (see e.g. around 26, around 47) configured to fluidly couple the specimen chamber to an external
Benner may fail to explicitly disclose the external comprising an external pump for lowering a pressure in the specimen chamber; and a sorption pump disposed in the specimen chamber and configured to further lower the pressure in the specimen chamber, the sorption pump comprising a plurality of non-evaporable getter (NEG) units disposed in an annular arrangement around the optical axis, wherein a vacuum condition in the vacuum chamber is independent from a vacuum condition in the enclosure.
However, the use of external pumps used with sorption pumps to provide charged particle microscopy vacuum pressures was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Ichimura teaches a system for enhancing vacuum performance in charged particle beam systems, comprising an external pump (see e.g. turbomolecular pump, [0096]) for lowering a pressure in the specimen chamber; and a sorption pump (see [0096,43]) disposed in the vacuum chamber (required for operation of system) to further lower a pressure in the specimen chamber (see [0096,43]). 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 Ichimura in the system of the prior art, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to enhance vacuum operation of the system, including trying to use the known effective getter material inside the vacuum chamber where said vacuum is desired, in the manner taught by Ichimura. Therefore, the combined teaching discloses a vacuum condition in the vacuum chamber is independent from a vacuum condition in the enclosure (natural result of vacuum enclosure, see fig 1, claim 31).
The combined teaching of Benner and Ichimura may fail to explicitly disclose the degree (though not explicitly claimed) to which the vacuum condition in the vacuum chamber is independent from a vacuum condition in the enclosure; the sorption pump comprising a plurality of non-evaporable getter (NEG) units disposed in an annular arrangement around the optical axis.
However, it is noted that Benner calls the interior region 31 a vacuum area, and notes that the cooling plate 43_1 can withdraw contaminants from the vacuum area (see Benner, [0040]), suggesting some degree of gettering effect specifically targeting this interior vacuum area. Where the boundary of a vacuum condition (degree of vacuum) is not explicitly specified by the prior art, but under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the apertures in Benner (see fig 1, in 25) can be constructively defined as a boundary region. It is noted that the use of multiple vacuum regions to improve vacuum isolation was well known in the art. For example, Katagiri teaches a system to use multiple vacuum regions with sorption pumps (NEGs) to enable auxiliary and/or differential pumping and improve vacuum maintenance (see Katagiri, e.g. [0012-13], e.g. figs 7 or 9); comprising a sorption pump comprising a non-evaporable getter (NEG) unit disposed in an annular arrangement around the optical axis (see e.g. fig. 7: 4,5). 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 Katagiri in the system of the prior art, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve vacuum isolation and maintenance, in the manner taught by Katagiri. It is also noted 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 combined teaching may fail to explicitly disclose the NEG unit disposed in an annular arrangement is a plurality of NEG units disposed in an annular arrangement. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to form the NEG unit in parts, for example to simplify manufacturing, assembly, and/or repair, as a routine skill in the art, because it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(V); Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179
Regarding claim 12, the combined teaching of Benner and Ichimura teaches the sorption pump is disposed in a volume defined by the concentrated magnetic field lines (see Benner, fig 1), and wherein the sorption pump is relatively non-magnetic (vanadium glass, see Ichimura, abstract).
Regarding claim 13, the combined teaching of Benner and Ichimura teaches the sorption pump is disposed in a volume defined by the concentrated magnetic field lines (see Benner, fig 1).
Regarding claim 16, Benner teaches a method of achieving a vacuum in a charged particle microscope specimen chamber, the method comprising:
providing the specimen chamber (see fig 1, around 5) configured to receive a specimen holder (see fig 3: 61) in an imaging position intersecting a charged particle optical axis (see fig 1), wherein the specimen chamber is situated within a vacuum enclosure of the charged particle microscope (vacuum enclosure required for operation of TEM, note fig 1: 7, 17, etc), and wherein the specimen chamber is at least partially defined by a magnetic yoke (see 29) comprising a first pole piece and a second pole piece (see upper and lower sections of fig 1: 29), the first pole piece including a first aperture and the second pole piece including a second aperture (see apertures formed in the interior space of 29 by hole 26), the first aperture and the second aperture being aligned with the optical axis (see fig 1);
activating a vacuum pump (required for intended operation of system)
Benner may fail to explicitly disclose activating a vacuum pump external to the specimen chamber to create an initial vacuum condition in the specimen chamber; and activating a sorption pump disposed in the specimen chamber to further lower a pressure in the specimen chamber, wherein a vacuum condition in the vacuum chamber is independent from a vacuum condition in the enclosure.
However, the use of external pumps used with sorption pumps to provide vacuum pressures was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Ichimura teaches a system for enhancing vacuum performance in charged particle beam systems, comprising activating a vacuum pump (see e.g. turbomolecular pump, [0096]) external to the specimen chamber (substantially away than the sorption pump, see [0045]; note well known and obvious to move the pump outside of the beam column; also note that turbomolecular pump would not fit inside Benner, fig 1, around 5) to create an initial vacuum condition in the specimen chamber; and activating a sorption pump (see [0096,43]) disposed in the specimen chamber to further lower a pressure in the specimen chamber (see vanadium glass getter pump, [0096,43]). 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 Ichimura in the system of the prior art, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to enhance vacuum operation of the system, including trying to use the known effective getter material inside the vacuum chamber where said vacuum is desired, in the manner taught by Ichimura. Therefore, the combined teaching discloses a vacuum condition in the vacuum chamber is independent from a vacuum condition in the enclosure (natural result of vacuum enclosure, see fig 1, claim 31).
The combined teaching of Benner and Ichimura may fail to explicitly disclose the degree (though not explicitly claimed) to which the vacuum condition in the vacuum chamber is independent from a vacuum condition in the enclosure; wherein the first aperture and the second aperture define a boundary of the vacuum condition in the vacuum chamber.
However, it is noted that Benner calls the interior region 31 a vacuum area, and notes that the cooling plate 43_1 can withdraw contaminants from the vacuum area (see Benner, [0040]), suggesting some degree of gettering effect specifically targeting this interior vacuum area. Where the boundary of a vacuum condition (degree of vacuum) is not explicitly specified by the prior art, but under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the apertures in Benner (see fig 1, in 25) can be constructively defined as a boundary region. It is also noted that the use multiple vacuum regions, having boundary aperture regions, to improve vacuum isolation was well known in the art. For example, Katagiri teaches a system to use multiple vacuum regions with sorption pumps (NEGs) to enable auxiliary and/or differential pumping and improve vacuum maintenance (see Katagiri, e.g. [0012-13], e.g. fig 9: 86), wherein said regions have apertures that define boundaries of their respective vacuum conditions (see fig 9, between 85, 86, 87). 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 Katagiri in the system of the prior art, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve vacuum isolation and maintenance, in the manner taught by Katagiri.
Regarding claim 18, the combined teaching of Benner and Ichimura teaches the sorption pump includes a non-evaporable getter (see Ichimura, e.g. [0042,96]), and wherein activating includes heating the non-evaporable getter to an activation temperature (naturally required for operation of getter, e.g. [0096]).
Regarding claim 19, the combined teaching of Benner and Ichimura teaches the charged particle microscope is a transmission electron microscope (see Benner, fig 1).
Regarding claim 20, the combined teaching of Benner, Ichimura, and Katagiri may fail to explicitly disclose the initial vacuum condition is in the range of 10^-7 millibars to 10^-9 millibars. However, Ichimura teaches the initial turbomolecular pump based vacuum is capable of a vacuum range from 10^-5 to 10^-10 mbar (see Ichimura [0097,105]). It was also well known that different portions of the TEM system can operate at different vacuum levels (see e.g. Benner, [0037]), and that external pumps can augment the internal ones (see e.g. Katagiri, 17). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust when and/or where the sorption pump is active to balance reducing time for providing the full vacuum while not overloading the getter materials, including utilizing the turbomolecular pump to provide initial (i.e. prior) and/or partial vacuum conditions in the range of 10^-7 millibars to 10^-9 millibars. It has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 2, 11, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Benner, Ichimura, and Katagiri, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stefan Manuel Noisternig et al., In situ STEM analysis of electron beam induced chemical etching of an ultra-thin amorphous carbon foil by oxygen during high resolution scanning, Ultramicroscopy 235 (2022) 113483 [hereinafter Noisternig].
Regarding claim 2, the combined teaching of Benner, Ichimura, and Katagiri may fail to explicitly disclose the sorption pump is configured to achieve a pressure of 10^-8 millibars or lower in the vacuum chamber. However, these use of these pressures in TEM systems was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Noisternig teaches a TEM system using a sorption pump to achieve a pressure of 10^-8 millibars or lower in the specimen chamber (see Noisternig, p2, col 2, para 2) as part of system to explore the effect of gases leaked onto materials in the chamber (see abstract). 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 Noisternig in the system of the prior art to enable the ability to study different materials at a range of pressures, in the manner taught by Noisternig.
Regarding claim 11, the combined teaching of Benner, Ichimura, and Katagiri may fail to explicitly disclose the sorption pump is configured to achieve a pressure of 10^-8 millibars or lower in the specimen chamber. However, these use of these pressures in TEM systems was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Noisternig teaches a TEM system using a sorption pump to achieve a pressure of 10^-8 millibars or lower in the specimen chamber (see Noisternig, p2, col 2, para 2) as part of system to explore the effect of gases leaked onto materials in the chamber (see abstract). 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 Noisternig in the system of the prior art to enable the ability to study different materials at a range of pressures, in the manner taught by Noisternig.
Regarding claim 17, the combined teaching of Benner and Ichimura fails to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Noisternig, for similar reasons as claim 11 above.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Benner, Ichimura, and Katagiri, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fukushima (US 20090159797 A1).
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are rejected in view of Benner, Ichimura, and Katagiri, as discussed above. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, it is additionally noted that the use of physical stops to separate vacuum regions was known in the art. For example, Fukushima teaches adjusting orifice size based on degree of vacuum desired (see Fukushima, compare [0040-41]) and teaches using sliding plates having different aperture sizes on top and bottom surfaces of magnetic yokes (see Fukushima, figs 2, 3) which enables the ability to balance gas ingress during microscopy of higher pressure gas reactions (see [0014-16), while also maximizing field of view depending on the desired experiment (see [0024-25]). 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 the vacuum region separating apertures of Fukushima in the system of the prior art to enable the ability to balance maintaining a desired vacuum level with increasing field of view for observations, based on a desired vacuum level and experiment, and/or additionally enabling the ability to additionally perform higher pressure microscopy for different experiments, in the manner taught by Fukushima.
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
Prosecution Insights