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 .
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-15, 17-21 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-15, 17-21 is/are rejected.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
PNG
media_image1.png
120
1248
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
PNG
media_image2.png
89
869
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites “the second scan of sample locations is restricted to the sample locations associated with a selected one of the one or more potential materials or material characteristics, a type of compound; a chemical; an element; an ionization state; an oxidation state; a plasmon; a plasmon peak; a phonon; and a valence state” but the claim is currently broad enough to read on the list of properties after each semicolon to be unrelated limitations not associated with the scan, locations, or materials, and it is unclear how they are connected with the first half of the claim.
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_image3.png
158
934
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-7, 13-15, 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Freitag et al. (US 20190341243 A1) [hereinafter Freitag] in view of Walden et al. (US 20220247934 A1) [hereinafter Walden].
Regarding claim 1, Freitag teaches a method for investigation of a sample with a charged particle system using dynamic data-driven detector tuning, the method comprising the steps of:
acquiring initial sample data (via EELS, see [0039]) for a region of interest on the sample (see fig 1:S; e.g. onto first and/or second detection zones), wherein the initial sample data is acquired via a first scan of the sample (see e.g. [0083,21]);
determining two or more potential materials or material characteristics (e.g. C, Ti, see fig 3, [0083,21]) that are potentially present in the region of interest based on initial sample data (see same);
identifying a differentiation detector window (differentiates between e.g. ZLP and CLP, see e.g. [0024,53]) for the one or more potential materials or material characteristics;
performing a second scan of sample locations associated with a selected one of the one or more potential materials or material characteristics (see repeating, e.g. claim 3, which will scan all locations, including those sample locations associated with the potential materials)
Freitag may fail to explicitly disclose adjusting detector settings of a detector in the charged particle system such that the detector is configured to obtain information within the differentiation detector window; and performing a second scan of the sample while the detector has the adjusted detector settings to obtain sample information within the differentiation detector window.
However, the use of detector differentiation window feedback adjustments was well known in the art. For example, Walden teaches a system to enable manual and/or automatic adjustment of multiple detector settings, including binning, dwell rate, magnification, resolution, etc (see [0171]) while controlling thermal ramp up of the sample (see [0170]). 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 Walden in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve control and operation of the system, including enabling the ability to manually and/or automatically adjust detector settings in response to different operations like e.g. magnification changes (see e.g. [0171]). Therefore, the combined teaching of Freitag and Walden teaches adjusting detector settings of a detector in the charged particle system (see Walden, e.g. [00171]) such that the detector is configured to obtain information within the differentiation detector window (obtains information within desired range, see e.g. Freitag, [0024,53]); and performing a second scan (subsequent scan after detection parameters manually or automatically changed) of the sample while the detector has the adjusted detector settings to obtain sample information within the differentiation detector window (same analysis repeated).
Regarding claim 2, Freitag teaches the one or more potential materials or material characteristics present in the region of interest comprise a first material and a second material (e.g. Freitag, C, Ti, fig 3, [0083,21]), and the method further comprises: identifying, based on the sample information within the differentiation detector window, the first material of the one or more materials as being located at a first location within the region of interest (identifies e.g. C and Ti peaks marked in fig 3). Freitag may fail to explicitly disclose how the materials are identified, but the identification of peaks from mass spectra to identify elements was well known in the art, if not required for the intended operation of the system.
Regarding claim 3, Freitag teaches identifying, based on the sample information within the differentiation, a second material of the one or more materials (other one of C and Ti, see fig 3) as being located at a second location within the region of interest (as scanning continues over the sample, see [0069]).
Regarding claim 4, Freitag fails to explicitly disclose the differentiation detector window is determined based on a first spectral fingerprint associated with the first material and a second spectral fingerprint associated with the second material. Freitag teaches setting the differentiation window (selects the detector zone) based on desired intensity level, rather than specifically and directly the spectral fingerprinting (though indirectly this spectral window would be required, even if that window is the entire EELS range). However, in a different embodiment, Freitag teaches that magnification of the EELS spectrum is possible to select between an entire EELS spectrum or a zoomed-in region of the EELS spectrum (see Freitag, [0023,54]). 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 Freitag and provide differentiation based on an additional differentiation detector window (window of EELS spectra), to enable the ability to adjust analysis of EELS spectra, to identify specific spectral fingerprints (peaks) in the manner taught by Freitag.
Regarding claim 5, Freitag teaches the differentiation detector window is determined based on one or more differentiating features (e.g. CLP vs ZLP energy ranges and/or window that captures desired energies for analysis, i.e. C and Ti; see Freitag, fig 3) between the first spectral fingerprint associated with the first material and the second spectral fingerprint associated with the second material (e.g. broadly, difference between the CLP and ZLP ranges, see [0024,53]; alternately note given the teaching that the ranges are selectable based on desired portion of an EELS spectrum ([0054]) it was well known in the art and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select a window that would contains peaks corresponding to elements the operator is looking for, i.e. C and Ti).
Regarding claim 6, Freitag teaches determining the differentiation detector window comprises: determining a differentiating feature between the first spectral fingerprint and the second spectral fingerprint (e.g. CLP vs ZLP energy ranges and/or window that captures desired energies for analysis, i.e. C and Ti; see Freitag, fig 3); and determining the differentiation detector window to include the differentiating feature (selecting appropriate energies, see [0024,53], and/or alternately note given the teaching that the ranges are selectable based on desired portion of an EELS spectrum ([0054]).
Regarding claim 7, Freitag teaches the one or more potential materials or material characteristics present in the region of interest comprise a first material characteristic and a second material characteristic (e.g. Freitag, C, Ti, fig 3, [0083,21], CLP ranges), and the method further comprises: identifying, based on the sample information within the differentiation detector window, the first material characteristic of the one or more materials as being located at a first location within the region of interest (identifies e.g. C and Ti peaks marked in fig 3). Freitag may fail to explicitly disclose how the materials are identified, but the identification of peaks from mass spectra to identify elements was well known in the art, if not required for the intended operation of the system.
Regarding claim 13, Freitag teaches the differentiation detector window is a first differentiation detector window (e.g. CLP vs ZLP energy ranges and/or window that captures desired energies for analysis, i.e. C and Ti; see Freitag, fig 3; alternately first spectral region, see Freitag, [0046-47]), and wherein scanning corresponds to: scanning one or more first regions associated with the one or more materials with the detector having the adjusted detector settings to obtain information within the first differentiation detector window (see [0069]); and scanning one or more second regions associated with the one or more additional materials with the detector having the adjusted detector settings (see continuous scanning of the region, [0069]; also note continuous scanning during readouts, [0096]; STEM mode, [0012]) to obtain information within a second differentiation detector window that does not overlap with the first differentiation detector window (see [0047]). Note that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to repeat the taught process across subsequent second regions during characterization of the entire specimen (see e.g. [0048]).
Regarding claim 14, Freitag teaches the first regions are scanned before the second regions are scanned (see e.g. Freitag, [0048]).
Regarding claim 15, Freitag teaches scanning the region of interest comprises alternating the detector settings based on the portion of the region of interest being irradiated (see claim 3). Also note a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04; In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 17, Freitag teaches the initial sample data is acquired as part of the first scan via one of: a STEM scan; an EDX scan; an IDPC scan; an EELS scan (see Freitag, [0039]); a low resolution EELS scan; and a low resolution EDX scan, and wherein individual materials of the one or more potential materials corresponds to: a type of compound; a chemical; an element; an ionization state; an oxidation state; a plasmon; a plasmon peak; a phonon; and a valence state (natural result of an individual material to inherently correspond these physical characteristics, even if the characteristic in the list is not even measured during this process).
Regarding claim 18, Freitag teaches the second scan of sample locations is restricted to the sample locations associated (all locations associated based on pre-first-scan determination) with a selected one of the one or more potential materials or material characteristics, a type of compound; a chemical; an element (see Freitag, fig 3); an ionization state; an oxidation state; a plasmon; a plasmon peak; a phonon; and a valence state.
Regarding claim 19, Freitag teaches a charged particle system for investigating a sample, the system comprising:
a sample holder (see fig 1: H) configured to hold a sample (see S);
a charged particle source (see 4) configured to emit a beam of charged particles (B) towards the sample;
an optical column (see e.g. 6) configured to cause the beam of charged particles to be incident on the sample;
one or more detectors (see e.g. fig 4) configured to detect charged particles of the charged particle beam and/or emissions resultant from the charged particle beam being incident on the sample, the one or more detectors comprising at least an adjustable detector having adjustable detector settings (see e.g. [0054]), wherein the detector settings of the adjustable detector can be changed so that the adjustable detector obtains information within a desired differentiation detector window (differentiates between e.g. ZLP and CLP, see e.g. [0024,53]; alternately e.g. [0047-49]);
one or more processors (required for intended operation of system, see 20); and
a memory (required for intended operation of system) storing computer readable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform the method of:
acquiring initial sample data (via EELS, see [0039]) for a region of interest on the sample (see fig 1:S; e.g. onto first and/or second detection zones), wherein the initial sample data is acquired via a first scan of the sample (see e.g. [0083,21]);
determining two or more potential materials or material characteristics (e.g. C, Ti, see fig 3, [0083,21]) that are potentially present in the region of interest based on initial sample data (see same);
identifying a differentiation detector window (differentiates between e.g. ZLP and CLP, see e.g. [0024,53]) for the one or more potential materials (see also differentiates between e.g. ZLP and CLP, see e.g. [0024,53]);
performing a second scan of sample locations associated with a selected one of the one or more potential materials or material characteristics (see repeating, e.g. claim 3, which will scan all locations, including those sample locations associated with the potential materials)
Freitag may fail to explicitly disclose adjusting detector settings of a detector in the charged particle system such that the detector is configured to obtain information within the differentiation detector window; and performing a second scan of the sample while the detector has the adjusted detector settings to obtain sample information within the differentiation detector window.
However, the use of detector differentiation window feedback adjustments was well known in the art. For example, Walden teaches a system to enable manual and/or automatic adjustment of multiple detector settings, including binning, dwell rate, magnification, resolution, etc (see [0171]) while controlling thermal ramp up of the sample (see [0170]). 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 Walden in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve control and operation of the system, including enabling the ability to manually and/or automatically adjust detector settings in response to different operations like e.g. magnification changes (see e.g. [0171]). Therefore, the combined teaching of Freitag and Walden teaches adjusting detector settings of a detector in the charged particle system (see Walden, e.g. [00171]) such that the detector is configured to obtain information within the differentiation detector window (obtains information within desired range, see e.g. Freitag, [0024,53]); and performing a second scan (subsequent scan after detection parameters manually or automatically changed) of the sample while the detector has the adjusted detector settings to obtain sample information within the differentiation detector window (same analysis repeated).
Regarding claim 20, Freitag teaches the adjustable detector is able to change the differentiation detector window within 10 ms (required for short exposure ZLP analysis, see Freitag, [0024]). Additionally note that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust timing based on the longer exposure CLP time, including timing within 10ms, as a routine skill in the art to obtain optimal detection based on different concentration/intensities (see [0024]). It has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 21, Freitag teaches a method for investigation of a sample with a charged particle system using dynamic data-driven detector tuning, the method comprising the steps of:
acquiring initial sample data (via EELS, see [0039]) for a region of interest on the sample (see fig 1:S; e.g. onto first and/or second detection zones), wherein the initial sample data is acquired via a first scan of the sample (see e.g. [0083,21]);
determining two or more potential materials or material characteristics (e.g. C, Ti, see fig 3, [0083,21]) that are potentially present in the region of interest based on initial sample data (see same);
identifying a differentiation detector window (differentiates between e.g. ZLP and CLP, see e.g. [0024,53]) for the one or more potential materials or material characteristics (see also differentiates between e.g. ZLP and CLP, see e.g. [0024,53]), wherein the differentiation detector window is selected based on material-specific differentiating features (e.g. ZLP and CLP sensitivity, see e.g. [0023,24,53], etc) associated with at least one of the potential materials or material characteristics (features naturally associated with physical characteristics of the material);
performing a second scan of the sample (see repeating, e.g. claim 3, which will scan all locations, including those sample locations associated with the potential materials)
Freitag may fail to explicitly disclose adjusting detector settings of a detector in the charged particle system such that the detector is configured to obtain information within the differentiation detector window; and performing a second scan of the sample while the detector has the adjusted detector settings to obtain sample information within the differentiation detector window.
However, the use of detector differentiation window feedback adjustments was well known in the art. For example, Walden teaches a system to enable manual and/or automatic adjustment of multiple detector settings, including binning, dwell rate, magnification, resolution, etc (see [0171]) while controlling thermal ramp up of the sample (see [0170]). 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 Walden in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve control and operation of the system, including enabling the ability to manually and/or automatically adjust detector settings in response to different operations like e.g. magnification changes (see e.g. [0171]). Therefore, the combined teaching of Freitag and Walden teaches adjusting detector settings of a detector in the charged particle system (see Walden, e.g. [00171]) such that the detector is configured to obtain information within the differentiation detector window (obtains information within desired range, see e.g. Freitag, [0024,53]); and performing a second scan (subsequent scan after detection parameters manually or automatically changed) of the sample while the detector has the adjusted detector settings to obtain sample information within the differentiation detector window (same analysis repeated).
Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Freitag and Walden, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fraser et al., 12 - Transmission Electron Microscopy for Physical Metallurgists (2014) in Physical Metallurgy (Fifth Edition) (2014).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teaching of Freitag and Walden may fail to explicitly disclose the steps of:determining one or more additional materials that are potentially present in the region of interest, wherein the one or more additional materials present in the region of interest comprise a third material and a fourth material; andwherein the differentiation detector window is further determined based on associated spectral fingerprints of the one or more additional materials. However, the use of spectral analysis of four or more elements was notoriously well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Fraser teaches analyzing both CLP and ZLP spectra of more than 4 materials each with distinct peaks (see e.g. p1205, 1208-09, figs 51-52), comprising determining one or more additional materials that are potentially present in the region of interest (see elements in figs 51, 52), wherein the one or more additional materials present in the region of interest comprise a third material and a fourth material (more than 4 materials); and wherein the differentiation detector window is further determined based on associated spectral fingerprints of the one or more additional materials (see identification of material presence and concentration based on peak fitting, see e.g. p1208-09). 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 Fraser in the system of the prior art to provide identification of different materials in a specimen region, as was well known in the art, in order to learn more information about specimen region.
Regarding claim 9, the combined teaching of Freitag, Walden, and Fraser teaches the differentiation detector window is determined so that the differentiation detector window includes a reduced amount of expected spectral data from the associated spectral fingerprints of the one or more additional materials (see filtering spectra to limited range, Freitag, [0023,54]).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teaching of Freitag and Walden may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Fraser, for similar reasons as claim 8 above. Therefore, the combined teaching of Freitag, Walden, and Fraser teaches determining one or more additional materials that are potentially present in the region of interest (see desired elemental peaks for analysis, Fraser, figs 51,52), wherein the one or more additional materials present in the region of interest comprise a third material (see other elemental peaks); and wherein the differentiation detector window is further determined based on associated spectral fingerprints of the one or more additional materials (see identification of material presence and concentration based on peak fitting, see e.g. p1208-09; see filtering spectra to limited range, Freitag, [0023,54])
Regarding claim 11, Freitag may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Fraser, for similar reasons as claim 8 above. Therefore, the combined teaching of Freitag, Walden, and Fraser teaches the differentiation detector window is a first differentiation detector window (e.g. first detector limited to a first spectral region, see Freitag, [0046-47]), and the method further comprising the steps of: determining one or more additional materials that are potentially present in the region of interest (see desired elemental peaks for analysis, Fraser, figs 51,52), wherein the one or more additional materials present in the region of interest comprise a third material and a fourth material (see other elemental peaks); and determining a second differentiation detector window (e.g. second detector limited to second spectral region, see Freitag, [0046-47]) based on associated spectral fingerprints of the one or more additional materials (using known peak fitting), wherein the second differentiation detector window does not overlap with the first differentiation detector window (see [0047]).
Regarding claim 12, the combined teaching of Freitag, Walden, and Fraser teaches adjusting the detector settings of the detector to cause the detector to obtain information within the second differentiation detector window (see e.g. second spectral region, see Freitag, [0047]); scanning the sample while the detector has the adjusted detector settings to obtain additional sample information within the second differentiation detector window (see [0047]; see continuous scanning of the region, [0069]; also note continuous scanning during readouts, [0096]; STEM mode, [0012]); and identifying, based on the additional sample information within the second differentiation detector window, the third material as being located at a third location within the region of interest (defining the third material as whatever element is in that spectral region, note part of full spectra in fig 3, Fraser, figs 51-52).
Conclusion
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