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, see page 11, filed 11/14/2025, with respect to the objections to the claims and the §112 rejections of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the claims and the §112 rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 12-15, filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (on page 13) that Straw does not show, teach or suggest a feature of changing a first direction along a first line using a guidance device for a light beam and/or by moving an object using a movable object stage into a second direction by rotating the first line about an axis of rotation that runs through a surface of the object; Straw teaches that “The beam scans to the right along the X-axis 2102, thus the white streaks arising from saturation of the detector are horizontal with the brightest pixels at the left (during the laser pulse) and decaying to the right (as the plasma plume dissipates). The Y-axis (vertical downwards) 2104 is the slow-scan direction of the raster” [0103]. The raster motion of the laser pulse includes movement in a first direction along a first line (“along the X-axis”). Moving in the first direction (x-direction) is performed by moving an objecting using a movable object stage: “Sample 1120 is typically positioned on a precision stage (not shown), which preferably can translate the sample in the X-Y plane, and more preferably can also translate the work piece in the Z-axis, as well as being able to tilt and rotate the sample for maximum flexibility in fabricating three-dimensional structures” [0065]. Movement is changed to a second direction (along the Y-axis) since the movement described in Straw is a “raster”, which necessitates scanning lines connected by a movement in a second direction. The second direction is obtained by rotating the first line (in the x-direction) about an axis of rotation (a z-axis) that runs through a surface of the object (rastering in the x-y direction necessitates movement along an x-direction, and then movement along a y-direction that is rotated 90 degrees from the x-direction about a z-axis of rotation, which necessarily intersects the surface of a specimen that extends in the x-y direction, as in Straw, as evidenced by the raster scanning of the sample surface).
Additionally, Straw discloses that the sample can be moved in an x-direction, y-direction, z-direction, a tilt-direction, and/or a rotational direction (as described in paragraph [0065] of Straw).
Independent claims 1, 17, and 18 similarly recite the amended language of a second direction that is changed from the first direction by rotating the first line about an axis of rotation that runs through the surface of the object, as discussed above.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (on pages 14 and 15) with respect to claims 2-16, and 19-22; Applicant reiterates arguments with respect to Straw, as discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Straw et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2011/0248164.
Regarding claim 1, Straw discloses a method for producing at least one sample on an object using a material processing device having at least one light beam device that provides at least one light beam (“A pulsed laser enables milling of a sample at material removal rates several orders of magnitude larger than possible for a focused ion beam” [Abstract]), the method comprising: guiding the light beam over a surface of the object in a first direction along a first line (“Sample 1120 is typically positioned on a precision stage (not shown), which preferably can translate the sample in the X-Y plane, and more preferably can also translate the work piece in the Z-axis, as well as being able to tilt and rotate the sample for maximum flexibility in fabricating three-dimensional structures” [0065]) using a guidance device for the light beam and/or by moving the object using a movable object stage, on which the object is arranged (“The adjustments in X and Y allow the laser beam to be positioned on the sample so that it is coincident with one or both of the charged particle beams” [0054]), with material of the object being ablated when the light beam is guided over the surface of the object (“allowing the operator or system to determine when the laser ablation process has milled down to a predetermined endpoint, such as an underlying layer of material, etc.” [0082]); changing the first direction into a second direction by rotating the first line about an axis of rotation on the surface of the object (“the beam moves (typically in a raster pattern) across the sample surface” [0078]); and guiding the light beam over the surface of the object in the second direction along a second line, with the first direction differing from the second direction and with material of the object being ablated when the light beam is guided over the surface of the object along the second line (“the beam moves (typically in a raster pattern) across the sample surface” [0078]), wherein the light beam is provided in pulsed fashion by the light beam device (“A pulsed laser enables milling of a sample at material removal rates several orders of magnitude larger than possible for a focused ion beam” [Abstract]) and is guided onto the surface of the object in such a way that the light beam ablates material from the object in a first operational state of the light beam device and that the light beam is no guided onto the object in a second operational state (“Once the laser has recovered from the previous pulse, it is ready to fire again. In some cases, the maximum firing rate may be desired, in which case, once the laser is ready, the system (such as system 1100 in FIG. 1) would transition to block 1208 with minimal delay. In other cases, further imaging may be desired prior to firing the next laser pulse, in which case the system would remain in block 1204 for some additional period after the laser was ready to fire again before transitioning to block 1208” [0078]), and wherein the sample is produced in the first operational state by ablating material from the object (“allowing the operator or system to determine when the laser ablation process has milled down to a predetermined endpoint, such as an underlying layer of material, etc.” [0082]).
Regarding claim 11, Straw discloses that the method has at least one of the following features: the first direction is changed into the second direction by rotating the first line in a plane (since the lines scanned are part of a raster pattern: “the beam moves (typically in a raster pattern) across the sample surface” [0078]); the first line runs from a first point on the surface of the object in the direction of a second point on the surface of the object, with the axis of rotation intersecting the first line (since the lines scanned are part of a raster pattern: “the beam moves (typically in a raster pattern) across the sample surface” [0078]).
Regarding claim 12, Straw discloses that the axis of rotation is a first axis of rotation and wherein the method further comprises: changing the second direction into a third direction, the second direction being changed into the third direction by rotating the second line about a second axis of rotation on the surface of the object; and guiding the light beam over the surface of the object in the third direction along the third line, with the second direction differing from the third direction and with material of the object being ablated when the light beam is guided over the surface of the object along the third line (“A pulsed laser enables milling of a sample at material removal rates several orders of magnitude larger than possible for a focused ion beam” [Abstract] – “the beam moves (typically in a raster pattern) across the sample surface” [0078]).
Rastering implies at least two distinct directions; the claim does not specify that the first, second, and third directions are distinct from one another, but rather that the first and third directions are distinct from the second. In Straw, if the first and third directions may be the same directions (as a raster pattern would scan multiple lines having a same direction, separated by a distance in a second direction).
Regarding claim 13, Straw discloses that the second direction is changed into the third direction by rotating the second line in the plane (“the beam moves (typically in a raster pattern) across the sample surface” [0078]). By rastering the beam, the beam is moved along a first line, then the direction is changed by some angle, and then a new line is scanned, and then the direction is changed again by some angle, and then a new line is scanned.
Regarding claim 15, Straw discloses that the sample is processed using a particle beam 212, the particle beam being provided by a particle beam generator 201 of the material processing device 200.
Regarding claim 16, Straw discloses at least one of the following features: a laser beam is used as the light beam, with the light beam device being designed as a laser beam device; a pulsed laser is used as the light beam, with the light beam device being designed as a laser beam device; a laser beam of an ultrashort pulse laser beam device is used as a light beam (“A pulsed laser enables milling of a sample at material removal rates several orders of magnitude larger than possible for a focused ion beam” [Abstract]). Straw discloses a femtosecond laser (“A preferred laser provides a short, nanosecond to femtosecond, pulsed laser beam. Suitable lasers include, for example, a Ti:Sapphire oscillator or amplifier, a fiber-based laser, or an ytterbium- or chromium-doped thin disk laser” [0064]).
Regarding claim 17, Straw discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium containing software, which can be loaded into a processor and which, when executed, causes a material processing device to produced at least one sample on an object (“The invention described herein includes these and other various types of computer-readable storage media when such media contain instructions or programs for implementing the steps described above in conjunction with a microprocessor or other data processor. The invention also includes the computer itself when programmed according to the methods and techniques described herein” [0110]) by performing the following: guiding a light beam of a light beam device of the material processing device over a surface of the object (“A pulsed laser enables milling of a sample at material removal rates several orders of magnitude larger than possible for a focused ion beam” [Abstract]) in a first direction along a first line using a guiding device for the light beam and/or by moving the object using a movable object stage, on which the object is arranged, with material of the object being ablated when the light beam is guided over the surface of the object (“the beam moves (typically in a raster pattern) across the sample surface” [0078]); changing the first direction into a second direction by rotating the first line about an axis of rotation on the surface of the object (“the beam moves (typically in a raster pattern) across the sample surface” [0078]); and guiding the light beam over the surface of the object in the second direction along a second line, with the first direction differing from the second direction (“the beam moves (typically in a raster pattern) across the sample surface” [0078]) and with material of the object being ablated when the light beam is guided over the surface of the object along the second line (“A pulsed laser enables milling of a sample at material removal rates several orders of magnitude larger than possible for a focused ion beam” [Abstract]), wherein the light beam is provided in pulsed fashion by the light beam device (“A pulsed laser enables milling of a sample at material removal rates several orders of magnitude larger than possible for a focused ion beam” [Abstract]) and is guided onto the surface of the object in such a way that the light beam ablates material from the object in a first operational state of the light beam device and that the light beam is not guided onto the object in a second operational state (“Once the laser has recovered from the previous pulse, it is ready to fire again. In some cases, the maximum firing rate may be desired, in which case, once the laser is ready, the system (such as system 1100 in FIG. 1) would transition to block 1208 with minimal delay. In other cases, further imaging may be desired prior to firing the next laser pulse, in which case the system would remain in block 1204 for some additional period after the laser was ready to fire again before transitioning to block 1208” [0078]), and wherein the sample is produced in the first operational state by ablating material from the object (“A pulsed laser enables milling of a sample at material removal rates several orders of magnitude larger than possible for a focused ion beam” [Abstract]).
Regarding claim 18, Straw discloses a material processing device for processing an object, comprising: at least one light beam device 204 for providing at least one light beam; at least one guiding device 206 for guiding the light beam and/or at least one movable object stage (“Sample 1120 is typically positioned on a precision stage (not shown), which preferably can translate the sample in the X-Y plane, and more preferably can also translate the work piece in the Z-axis, as well as being able to tilt and rotate the sample for maximum flexibility in fabricating three-dimensional structures” [0065]); and at least one control device having a processor coupled to anon-transitory computer readable medium containing software which, when executed by the processor (“The invention described herein includes these and other various types of computer-readable storage media when such media contain instructions or programs for implementing the steps described above in conjunction with a microprocessor or other data processor. The invention also includes the computer itself when programmed according to the methods and techniques described herein” [0110]), produces at least one sample on the object by performing the following: guiding the light beam over a surface of the object (“A pulsed laser enables milling of a sample at material removal rates several orders of magnitude larger than possible for a focused ion beam” [Abstract]) in a first direction along a first line using the guiding device and/or by moving the object using the movable object stage, on which the object is arranged (“the beam moves (typically in a raster pattern) across the sample surface” [0078]), with material of the object being ablated when the light beam is guided over the surface of the object (“A pulsed laser enables milling of a sample at material removal rates several orders of magnitude larger than possible for a focused ion beam” [Abstract]); changing the first direction into a second direction by rotating the first line about an axis of rotation on the surface of the object (“the beam moves (typically in a raster pattern) across the sample surface” [0078]); and guiding the light beam over the surface of the object in the second direction along a second line, with the first direction differing from the second direction (“the beam moves (typically in a raster pattern) across the sample surface” [0078]) and with material of the object being ablated when the light beam is guided over the surface of the object along the second line (“A pulsed laser enables milling of a sample at material removal rates several orders of magnitude larger than possible for a focused ion beam” [Abstract]), wherein the light beam is provided in pulsed fashion by the light beam device (“A pulsed laser enables milling of a sample at material removal rates several orders of magnitude larger than possible for a focused ion beam” [Abstract]) and is guided onto the surface of the object in such a way that the light beam ablates material from the object in a first operational state of the light beam device and that the light beam is not guided onto the object in a second operational state (“Once the laser has recovered from the previous pulse, it is ready to fire again. In some cases, the maximum firing rate may be desired, in which case, once the laser is ready, the system (such as system 1100 in FIG. 1) would transition to block 1208 with minimal delay. In other cases, further imaging may be desired prior to firing the next laser pulse, in which case the system would remain in block 1204 for some additional period after the laser was ready to fire again before transitioning to block 1208” [0078]), and wherein the sample is produced in the first operational state by ablating material from the object (“A pulsed laser enables milling of a sample at material removal rates several orders of magnitude larger than possible for a focused ion beam” [Abstract]).
Regarding claim 19, Straw discloses at least one of the following features: a laser beam is used as the light beam, with the light beam device being designed as a laser beam device; a pulsed laser is used as the light beam, with the light beam device being designed as a laser beam device; a laser beam of an ultrashort pulse laser beam device is used as a light beam (“A pulsed laser enables milling of a sample at material removal rates several orders of magnitude larger than possible for a focused ion beam” [Abstract]). Straw discloses a femtosecond laser (“A preferred laser provides a short, nanosecond to femtosecond, pulsed laser beam. Suitable lasers include, for example, a Ti:Sapphire oscillator or amplifier, a fiber-based laser, or an ytterbium- or chromium-doped thin disk laser” [0064]).
Regarding claim 20, Straw discloses that the material processing device has the following features: at least one particle beam apparatus having at least one beam generator 201 that generates a particle beam 212 having charged particles, at least one objective lens that focuses the particle beam onto the object (“an electron source (not shown) for producing electrons and electron-optical lenses (not shown) for forming a finely focused beam of electrons 1150 which may be used for SEM imaging of the sample surface 1120” [0066]), at least one scanning device that scans the particle beam over the object (“Sample 1120 is typically positioned on a precision stage (not shown), which preferably can translate the sample in the X-Y plane, and more preferably can also translate the work piece in the Z-axis, as well as being able to tilt and rotate the sample for maximum flexibility in fabricating three-dimensional structures” [0065]), at least one detector that detects interaction particles and/or interaction radiation resulting from an interaction of the particle beam with the object (“two types of detectors are employed: type-1 detectors provide high gain imaging during scanning of the sample with an electron or ion beam, while type-2 detectors enable lower gain imaging and endpoint detection during laser milling” [Abstract]), and at least one display device that displays an image and/or an analysis of the object (“The output information is applied to one or more output devices such as a display monitor” [0111]).
Regarding claim 21, Straw discloses that the beam generator is designed as a first beam generator 1102 and the particle beam is embodied as a first particle beam with first charged particles 1150, wherein the objective lens is designed as a first objective lens for focusing the first particle beam onto the object (“an electron source (not shown) for producing electrons and electron-optical lenses (not shown) for forming a finely focused beam of electrons 1150 which may be used for SEM imaging of the sample surface 1120” [0066]), and wherein the particle beam apparatus further includes: at least one second beam generator 1104 that generates a second particle beam comprising second charged particles 1152; and at least one second objective lens that focuses the second particle beam onto the object (“Ion beam column 1104 typically forms a beam of ions 1152 which may be focused onto the sample surface 1120 at or near the focal point of the laser beam 1118” [0065] – since FIB column focuses ions, it necessarily incudes a device acting as a lens, and the final lens is an objective lens).
Regarding claim 22, Straw discloses at least one of the following features: the particle beam apparatus is an electron beam apparatus and/or an ion beam apparatus (“Charged particle beams include ion beams and electron beams” [0003]); the material processing device is designed as the particle beam apparatus (“Charged particle beam systems are used in a variety of applications, including the manufacturing, repair, and inspection of miniature devices, such as integrated circuits, magnetic recording heads, and photolithography masks. Charged particle beams include ion beams and electron beams” [0003]).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straw et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2011/0248164 in view of Robinson et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2004/0245466.
Regarding claim 2, Straw discloses the claimed invention except that there is no explicit disclosure of a second sample.
Robinson discloses a method of thinning multiple samples for electron microscopy (“multiple samples can be automatically processed up to, but not including the final cut. After thinning, samples must then be manually transferred to a support grid and into a TEM holder” [0012]) wherein “Because the sample has been pre-cut with a precision laser, there is a minimum of actual trimming required in the FIB, eliminating 45 minutes to two hours of milling time” [0026]. Each sample is produced when a pulsed laser is irradiated to the sample surface during a pulse of the laser (“The present invention is a tool with femto-laser machining capability. The laser cuts a sample out of a wafer that is strategically placed to handle the cut piece” [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Straw with the multiple sample ablation technique of Robinson in order to make the method of Straw repeatable to produce a multitude of samples instead of merely a single sample, thereby improving the economy of utilizing an ablation device by reusing the device for additional samples.
Regarding claim 3, Straw discloses the claimed invention except that there is no explicit disclosure of a second sample.
Robinson discloses a method of thinning multiple samples for electron microscopy (“multiple samples can be automatically processed up to, but not including the final cut. After thinning, samples must then be manually transferred to a support grid and into a TEM holder” [0012]) wherein “Because the sample has been pre-cut with a precision laser, there is a minimum of actual trimming required in the FIB, eliminating 45 minutes to two hours of milling time” [0026]. Each sample is produced when a pulsed laser is irradiated to the sample surface during a pulse of the laser (“The present invention is a tool with femto-laser machining capability. The laser cuts a sample out of a wafer that is strategically placed to handle the cut piece” [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Straw with the multiple sample ablation technique of Robinson in order to make the method of Straw repeatable to produce a multitude of samples instead of merely a single sample, thereby improving the economy of utilizing an ablation device by reusing the device for additional samples.
Regarding claim 4, Straw discloses the claimed invention except that there is no explicit disclosure of a second sample.
Robinson discloses a method of thinning multiple samples for electron microscopy (“multiple samples can be automatically processed up to, but not including the final cut. After thinning, samples must then be manually transferred to a support grid and into a TEM holder” [0012]) wherein “Because the sample has been pre-cut with a precision laser, there is a minimum of actual trimming required in the FIB, eliminating 45 minutes to two hours of milling time” [0026]. Each sample is produced when a pulsed laser is irradiated to the sample surface during a pulse of the laser (“The present invention is a tool with femto-laser machining capability. The laser cuts a sample out of a wafer that is strategically placed to handle the cut piece” [0022]). The first sample has a first face with a first center, wherein the second sample has a second face with a second center and wherein the first sample and the second sample are produced such that the first center is at a distance from the second center, wherein the distance is less than 900 µm (“The present invention is a tool with femto-laser machining capability. The laser cuts a sample out of a wafer that is strategically placed to handle the cut piece. The cut piece is on the order of 5 µm by 10 µm by the thickness of the wafer, 750 µm.” [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Straw with the multiple sample ablation technique of Robinson in order to make the method of Straw repeatable to produce a multitude of samples instead of merely a single sample, thereby improving the economy of utilizing an ablation device by reusing the device for additional samples.
Regarding claim 6, Straw discloses the claimed invention except that there is no explicit disclosure of a second sample.
Robinson discloses a method of thinning multiple samples for electron microscopy (“multiple samples can be automatically processed up to, but not including the final cut. After thinning, samples must then be manually transferred to a support grid and into a TEM holder” [0012]) wherein “Because the sample has been pre-cut with a precision laser, there is a minimum of actual trimming required in the FIB, eliminating 45 minutes to two hours of milling time” [0026]. Each sample is produced when a pulsed laser is irradiated to the sample surface during a pulse of the laser (“The present invention is a tool with femto-laser machining capability. The laser cuts a sample out of a wafer that is strategically placed to handle the cut piece” [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Straw with the multiple sample ablation technique of Robinson in order to make the method of Straw repeatable to produce a multitude of samples instead of merely a single sample, thereby improving the economy of utilizing an ablation device by reusing the device for additional samples.
Regarding claim 7, Straw discloses the claimed invention except that there is no explicit disclosure of a second sample.
Robinson discloses a method of thinning multiple samples for electron microscopy (“multiple samples can be automatically processed up to, but not including the final cut. After thinning, samples must then be manually transferred to a support grid and into a TEM holder” [0012]) wherein “Because the sample has been pre-cut with a precision laser, there is a minimum of actual trimming required in the FIB, eliminating 45 minutes to two hours of milling time” [0026]. Each sample is produced when a pulsed laser is irradiated to the sample surface during a pulse of the laser (“The present invention is a tool with femto-laser machining capability. The laser cuts a sample out of a wafer that is strategically placed to handle the cut piece” [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Straw with the multiple sample ablation technique of Robinson in order to make the method of Straw repeatable to produce a multitude of samples instead of merely a single sample, thereby improving the economy of utilizing an ablation device by reusing the device for additional samples. However, although Robinson discloses laser ablation of multiple samples, there is no explicit disclosure that the multiple samples includes the claimed number of samples. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to process the claimed number of samples since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to process the claimed number of samples for the purpose of ensuring that a desired number of samples is produced, where an operator may require a specific number of samples in order to properly analyze a subject from which the samples are ablated. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding claim 8, Straw discloses the claimed invention except that there is no explicit disclosure of a second sample.
Robinson discloses a method of thinning multiple samples for electron microscopy (“multiple samples can be automatically processed up to, but not including the final cut. After thinning, samples must then be manually transferred to a support grid and into a TEM holder” [0012]) wherein “Because the sample has been pre-cut with a precision laser, there is a minimum of actual trimming required in the FIB, eliminating 45 minutes to two hours of milling time” [0026]. Each sample is produced when a pulsed laser is irradiated to the sample surface during a pulse of the laser (“The present invention is a tool with femto-laser machining capability. The laser cuts a sample out of a wafer that is strategically placed to handle the cut piece” [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Straw with the multiple sample ablation technique of Robinson in order to make the method of Straw repeatable to produce a multitude of samples instead of merely a single sample, thereby improving the economy of utilizing an ablation device by reusing the device for additional samples.
Regarding claim 9, Straw discloses the claimed invention except that there is no explicit disclosure of a second sample.
Robinson discloses a method of thinning multiple samples for electron microscopy (“multiple samples can be automatically processed up to, but not including the final cut. After thinning, samples must then be manually transferred to a support grid and into a TEM holder” [0012]) wherein “Because the sample has been pre-cut with a precision laser, there is a minimum of actual trimming required in the FIB, eliminating 45 minutes to two hours of milling time” [0026]. Each sample is produced when a pulsed laser is irradiated to the sample surface during a pulse of the laser (“The present invention is a tool with femto-laser machining capability. The laser cuts a sample out of a wafer that is strategically placed to handle the cut piece” [0022]). The first sample has a first face with a first center, wherein the second sample has a second face with a second center and wherein the first sample and the second sample are produced such that the first center is at a distance from the second center, wherein the distance is less than 900 µm (“The present invention is a tool with femto-laser machining capability. The laser cuts a sample out of a wafer that is strategically placed to handle the cut piece. The cut piece is on the order of 5 µm by 10 µm by the thickness of the wafer, 750 µm.” [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Straw with the multiple sample ablation technique of Robinson in order to make the method of Straw repeatable to produce a multitude of samples instead of merely a single sample, thereby improving the economy of utilizing an ablation device by reusing the device for additional samples.
Regarding claim 14, Straw discloses the claimed invention except that there is no explicit disclosure that the light beam is guided over the surface of the object in increments of less than 300nm.
Robinson discloses a method of thinning multiple samples for electron microscopy (“multiple samples can be automatically processed up to, but not including the final cut. After thinning, samples must then be manually transferred to a support grid and into a TEM holder” [0012]) using a pulsed laser (“The present invention is a tool with femto-laser machining capability. The laser cuts a sample out of a wafer that is strategically placed to handle the cut piece” [0022]). The light beam is guided over the surface of the object in increments of less than 300nm (“Samples must first be thinned to an ultra-thin membrane transparent to electrons: approximately 50 nm (0.00005 mm) or less” [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Straw with Robinson in order to ensure that a sample is made to be thin enough for a specific type of electron microscopy used to inspect the sample (where Robinson teaches that the sample must have a sufficient thickness in order to be viewed by transmission electron microscopy [Robinson: 0005]).
Claim(s) 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straw et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2011/0248164 in view of Robinson et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2004/0245466 in further view of Talbot et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2001/0010356.
Regarding claim 5, Straw discloses the claimed invention, except that while Straw discloses laser milling of a sample (“A pulsed laser enables milling of a sample at material removal rates several orders of magnitude larger than possible for a focused ion beam. In some embodiments, a scanning electron microscope enables high resolution imaging of the sample during laser processing” [Abstract]), there is no explicit disclosure of a marking arranged on a face of a sample.
Talbot discloses that “More precise information about the location of structure fabricated on the wafer is needed, and can be provided by marking the back side of the substrate in accordance with the invention, e.g., by laser-milling or FIB-milling of marks such as marks 1670 and 1675 shown in FIG. 16. Such marks can be used to align an IR optical image acquired through the backside of the substrate with a FIB image, since the marks are visible in both types of image” [0075].
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Straw with the alignment marks of Talbot in order to provide improved alignment of the sample in a subsequent imaging operation, thereby ensuring proper imaging of the sample.
Regarding claim 10, Straw discloses the claimed invention, except that while Straw discloses laser milling of a sample (“A pulsed laser enables milling of a sample at material removal rates several orders of magnitude larger than possible for a focused ion beam. In some embodiments, a scanning electron microscope enables high resolution imaging of the sample during laser processing” [Abstract]), there is no explicit disclosure of a marking arranged on a face of a sample.
Talbot discloses that “More precise information about the location of structure fabricated on the wafer is needed, and can be provided by marking the back side of the substrate in accordance with the invention, e.g., by laser-milling or FIB-milling of marks such as marks 1670 and 1675 shown in FIG. 16. Such marks can be used to align an IR optical image acquired through the backside of the substrate with a FIB image, since the marks are visible in both types of image” [0075].
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Straw with the alignment marks of Talbot in order to provide improved alignment of the sample in a subsequent imaging operation, thereby ensuring proper imaging of the sample.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straw et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2011/0248164 in view of Kidron et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2006/0011868.
Regarding claim 23, Straw discloses the claimed invention except that while Straw discloses a semiconductor processing method wherein “Although much of the previous description is directed at processing semiconductor devices or wafers, the invention could be applied to any suitable substrate or surface” [0108], there is no explicit disclosure that the at least one sample is cylindrical.
Kidron discloses a method of processing a sample (“In preparing specimens of an electronic structure for electron microscopic examination, various polishing and milling processes can be used to section the structure until a specific characteristic feature is exposed” [0004]) wherein the sample is cylindrical (“the object 102 is a cylindrically shaped semiconductor wafer” [0131]).
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Straw with the sample shape of Kidron in order to perform the method of Straw on an existing, commercially available semiconductor specimen, thereby adapting the method for a number of different shapes suitable for semiconductor processing.
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 JASON L MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)270-1489. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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 571-272-2293. 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.
/JASON L MCCORMACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2881