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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 11 June 2026, with respect to the claims have been entered. Therefore, the rejections of claims 16 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) have been withdrawn. However, the amendments to the claims have necessitated new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(d). See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Kholine have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to applicant's argument, see pages 18-19, that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an electric field which accelerates and then decelerates the incident electrons) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s argument regarding the use of a voltage that is at least twice the converted acceleration voltage, features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing 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 (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114.
Applicant's arguments regarding the use of grid electrodes in Watson have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The disclosure of Watson contains no references to grid electrodes; applicant has not provided sufficient evidence indicating that Watson discloses the use of grid electrodes. Specifically regarding applicant’s argument that “the converging trajectories shown in Figures 1-6 could not be obtained” without the use of grid electrodes, these types of converging trajectories are known in the art to be produceable by gridless energy analyzers. See, e.g., FIG. 1 of Vašina et al., “Realisation of the gridless cylindrical mirror analyser” (1979).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the analyzer electric field entrance in Watson have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Watson to teach the location of the entrance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11, 13, and 15-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “formed concentrically on the inside and the outside” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “formed concentrically on the inside and the outside” to mean “formed concentrically
Claims 2-11, 13, and 15-20 are rejected because of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “at least one additional electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer” in lines 2-3; the claim fails to specify whether the electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer recited in lines 6-7 and 18-19 is the energy analyzer according to claim 6 or the additional energy analyzer. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted the energy analyzer recited in lines 6-7 and 18-19 to be the “at least one additional electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 19 recites “[t]he spin vector distribution imaging apparatus according to claim 9.” Claim 9 is directed to “[t]he electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer according to claim 1,” not a spin vector distribution imaging apparatus. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mase et al. (JP Patent No. 3968436 B2), hereinafter Mase (English machine translation provided), in view of Watson (U.S. Patent No. 3,783,280 A), hereinafter Watson.
Regarding claim 1, Mase discloses an electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer (FIG. 1, element 20) comprising:
one or a plurality of outer electrodes (FIG. 1, elements 22, 24) and an inner electrode (FIG. 1, element 21) being disposed along the shapes of two rotation bodies formed concentrically on the inside and the outside (page 2, paragraph beginning “A cylindrical first inner electrode…”) for a common rotation axis (FIG. 1, axis A-A);
an electron incident hole and exit hole being formed in the outer electrodes at both ends on the rotation axis (FIG. 1: the incident hole is the gap between electrodes 24 adjacent sample S; the exit hole is the gap between electrodes 24 adjacent element 23);
a voltage applying means for applying a voltage for accelerating and decelerating electrons to the plurality of outer electrodes and the inner electrode (page 3, last paragraph); and
wherein no grid electrodes are provided on electron trajectories (page 3, ‘Best Mode’ paragraph 4 discloses that “[t]he first inner electrode 21 has a mesh shape”; however, FIG. 1 shows that the electrode 21 is not crossed by the trajectories of electrons X, Y);
wherein the inner-surface shape of the outer electrode is a shape becoming smaller in diameter toward the incident hole and becoming smaller in diameter toward the exit hole (FIG. 1: the inner surface of electrode 22 tapers from the center towards the incident and exit holes);
wherein the outer-surface shape of the inner electrode is a shape that becomes smaller in diameter toward the incident hole, a rod shape extending toward the incident hole, or a shape that becomes larger in diameter at the end on the incident hole side, and the outer-surface shape of the inner electrode is a shape that becomes smaller in diameter toward the exit hole, a rod shape extending toward the exit hole, or a shape that becomes larger in diameter at the end on the exit hole side (FIG. 1: the outer surface of electrode 21 tapers from the center towards the incident and exit holes); and
wherein a central trajectory is at a predetermined incident angle with the rotation axis (FIG. 1: the trajectory of electrons X is at an angle with respect to the rotation axis A-A), an applied voltage which is applied to each electrode is adjusted such that the central trajectory of electrons incident from the incident hole converges on the position of the exit hole at a predetermined exit angle with the rotation axis.
The limitations “a voltage applying means for applying a voltage for accelerating and decelerating electrons to the plurality of outer electrodes and the inner electrode…wherein a central trajectory is at a predetermined incident angle with the rotation axis, an applied voltage which is applied to each electrode is adjusted such that the central trajectory of electrons incident from the incident hole converges on the position of the exit hole at a predetermined exit angle with the rotation axis” are functional limitations. Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing 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 (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Mase teaches the structural limitations of the electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer, i.e., a voltage applying means which is capable of applying voltages to the electrodes. Therefore, the limitations of the claim are met.
Mase fails to disclose that the voltage applying means voltage is a voltage that is at least twice a converted acceleration voltage obtained by converting the energy of electrons into an acceleration voltage with reference to the potential of the outer electrode having the incident hole formed therein.
However, optimizing a voltage is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Mase teaches that “[a] stable electric field for efficiently introducing photoelectrons to be measured into the coaxial symmetrical mirror electron energy analyzer 20 and efficiently introducing Auger electrons to be measured into the miniature cylindrical mirror electron energy analyzer 30. In order to form each, a predetermined voltage can be applied” (paragraph spanning the end of page 3 to the beginning of page 4). As such, Mase identifies the voltage as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., forming a stable electric field for introducing electrons into the energy analyzer. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the voltage and identifies said voltage as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the voltage to meet the claimed voltage since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Mase fails to disclose a plurality of inner electrodes; wherein the voltage applying means voltage is applied to one or a plurality of inner electrodes except for the inner electrodes at both ends.
However, Watson discloses a plurality of inner electrodes (column 6, lines 55-60);
wherein the voltage applying means voltage is applied to one or a plurality of inner electrodes except for the inner electrodes at both ends (column 6, lines 60-66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Mase to include a plurality of inner electrodes; wherein the voltage applying means voltage is applied to one or a plurality of inner electrodes except for the inner electrodes at both ends, based on the teachings of Watson that this enables injection angle adjustments and fringing field compensation (Watson, column 6, lines 55-66).
Regarding claim 2, Mase in view of Watson as applied to claim 1 discloses the electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer according to claim 1.
In addition, Mase discloses that the inner-surface shape of the outer electrode and the outer- surface shape of the inner electrode are symmetrical with respect to a plane perpendicularly intersecting a line connecting the incident hole and the exit hole at the midpoint of the line (FIG. 1: the inner-surface shape of electrode 22 and the outer-surface shape of electrode 21 are symmetrical with respect to a plane formed by the vertical axis in the figure and the axis going into the page).
Regarding claim 3, Mase in view of Watson as applied to claim 1 discloses the electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer according to claim 1.
In addition, Mase discloses that the inner-surface shape of the outer electrode that becomes smaller in diameter toward the incident hole is a tapered shape, a toroidal surface shape, or a ring shape, and the inner-surface shape of the outer electrode that becomes smaller in diameter toward the exit hole is a tapered shape, a toroidal surface shape, or a ring shape (FIG. 1: the inner surface of electrode 22 tapers from the center towards the incident and exit holes); and
wherein the outer-surface shape of the inner electrode that becomes smaller in diameter toward the incident hole is a tapered shape or a toroidal surface shape, or a stepped shape that becomes gradually smaller in diameter toward the incident hole, and the outer-surface shape of the inner electrode that becomes smaller in diameter toward the exit hole is a tapered shape or a toroidal surface shape, or a stepped shape that becomes gradually smaller in diameter toward the exit hole (FIG. 1: the outer surface of electrode 21 tapers from the center towards the incident and exit holes).
Regarding claim 4, Mase in view of Watson as applied to claim 1 discloses the electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer according to claim 1.
Optimizing a voltage is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Mase teaches that “[a] stable electric field for efficiently introducing photoelectrons to be measured into the coaxial symmetrical mirror electron energy analyzer 20 and efficiently introducing Auger electrons to be measured into the miniature cylindrical mirror electron energy analyzer 30. In order to form each, a predetermined voltage can be applied” (paragraph spanning the end of page 3 to the beginning of page 4). As such, Mase identifies the voltage as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., forming a stable electric field for introducing electrons into the energy analyzer. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the voltage and identifies said voltage as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the voltage to meet the claimed voltage since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 5, Mase in view of Watson as applied to claim 4 discloses the electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer according to claim 4.
Optimizing a voltage is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Mase teaches that “[a] stable electric field for efficiently introducing photoelectrons to be measured into the coaxial symmetrical mirror electron energy analyzer 20 and efficiently introducing Auger electrons to be measured into the miniature cylindrical mirror electron energy analyzer 30. In order to form each, a predetermined voltage can be applied” (paragraph spanning the end of page 3 to the beginning of page 4). As such, Mase identifies the voltage as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., forming a stable electric field for introducing electrons into the energy analyzer. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the voltage and identifies said voltage as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the voltage to meet the claimed voltage since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 9, Mase in view of Watson as applied to claim 1 discloses the electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer according to claim 1.
In addition, Watson discloses that electrons of center trajectory can pass across the rotation axis at the inner electrode (FIG. 5, rotation axis 64, inner electrode 62) by changing the voltage conditions applied to the inner and outer electrodes, to control whether or not the central trajectory crosses the rotation axis, thereby switching the presence or absence of deflection of the electrons emitted from the exit hole (column 6, lines 15-32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Mase in view of Watson to include that electrons of center trajectory can pass across the rotation axis at the inner electrode, by changing the voltage conditions applied to the inner and outer electrodes, to control whether or not the central trajectory crosses the rotation axis, thereby switching the presence or absence of deflection of the electrons emitted from the exit hole, based on the additional teachings of Watson that this reduces aberrations (Watson, column 6, lines 15-32).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mase in view of Watson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shchepunov et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,082,602 B2), hereinafter Shchepunov.
Regarding claim 6, Mase in view of Watson as applied to claim 4 discloses the electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer according to claim 4.
Mase in view of Watson fails to disclose that a deflection angle of the electrons is 90°.
However, optimizing the deflection angle of the electrons is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Shchepunov teaches that “[t]he angular dispersion can be defined as the derivative d
v
x
1
/ d
K
x
0
…Geometry parameters of the sectors
S
1
(
S
3
) and
S
2
(curvature radii, deflection angles, distance between the sectors in the flight direction, etc.)…are preferably chosen so that d
v
x
1
/ d
K
x
0
=0” (column 28, lines 24-32, emphasis added). As such, Shchepunov identifies the deflection angle of the electrons as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., affecting the angular dispersion. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the deflection angle of the electrons and identifies said deflection angle as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the deflection angle of the electrons to meet the claimed angles since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 7, Mase in view of Watson as applied to claim 1 discloses the electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer according to claim 1.
Mase in view of Watson fails to disclose that a deflection angle of the electrons is 45°, 60°, 120°, 135°, or 150°.
However, optimizing the deflection angle of the electrons is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Shchepunov teaches that “[t]he angular dispersion can be defined as the derivative d
v
x
1
/ d
K
x
0
…Geometry parameters of the sectors
S
1
(
S
3
) and
S
2
(curvature radii, deflection angles, distance between the sectors in the flight direction, etc.)…are preferably chosen so that d
v
x
1
/ d
K
x
0
=0” (column 28, lines 24-32, emphasis added). As such, Shchepunov identifies the deflection angle of the electrons as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., affecting the angular dispersion. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the deflection angle of the electrons and identifies said deflection angle as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the deflection angle of the electrons to meet the claimed angles since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 8, Mase in view of Watson as applied to claim 1 discloses the electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer according to claim 1.
Mase in view of Watson fails to disclose that a deflection angle of the electrons is 45° or more and less than 90°, or more than 90° and 180° or less.
However, optimizing the deflection angle of the electrons is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Shchepunov teaches that “[t]he angular dispersion can be defined as the derivative d
v
x
1
/ d
K
x
0
…Geometry parameters of the sectors
S
1
(
S
3
) and
S
2
(curvature radii, deflection angles, distance between the sectors in the flight direction, etc.)…are preferably chosen so that d
v
x
1
/ d
K
x
0
=0” (column 28, lines 24-32, emphasis added). As such, Shchepunov identifies the deflection angle of the electrons as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., affecting the angular dispersion. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the deflection angle of the electrons and identifies said deflection angle as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the deflection angle of the electrons to meet the claimed angles since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mase in view of Watson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Farnell et al. (“Recommended Practice for Use of Electrostatic Analyzers in Electric Propulsion Testing”, 2017), hereinafter Farnell, and Shchepunov.
Regarding claim 10, Mase in view of Watson as applied to claim 1 discloses the electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer according to claim 1.
Mase in view of Watson fails to disclose that each of the rotation bodies has a rotation angle of 90° to 180° and is provided with a compensation electrode for compensating the electric field at the surface of at least one of the rotation bodies.
However, Farnell discloses that each of the rotation bodies has a rotation angle of 180° (FIG. 9).
When a claimed range “overlap[s] or lie[s] inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I; In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the case at hand, Farnell teaches a rotation angle of 180°, which overlaps with the claimed range of 90° to 180°. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Mase in view of Watson to meet the claimed range of rotation angles.
Mase in view of Watson and Farnell fails to disclose that each of the rotation bodies is provided with a compensation electrode for compensating the electric field at the surface of at least one of the rotation bodies.
However, Shchepunov discloses that each of the rotation bodies is provided with a compensation electrode for compensating the electric field at the surface of at least one of the rotation bodies (column 10, lines 54-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Mase in view of Watson and Farnell to include that each of the rotation bodies is provided with a compensation electrode for compensating the electric field at the surface of at least one of the rotation bodies, based on the teachings of Shchepunov that this improves ion bunch timing properties by compensating for electrostatic field distortions (Shchepunov, column 27, lines 21-27).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mase in view of Watson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krizek et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0069862 A1), hereinafter Krizek, and Shchepunov.
Regarding claim 11, Mase in view of Watson as applied to claim 1 discloses the electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer according to claim 1.
Mase in view of Watson fails to disclose that the electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer is configured as an imaging-type electron spectrometer characterized by providing an input lens having the incident hole on the lens axis, being disposed so that the lens axis and the rotation axis form a predetermined incident angle, and accepting the electrons emitted from a sample and emitting the electrons to the incident hole; a projection lens having the exit hole on the projection lens axis, and being disposed so that the projection lens axis and the rotation axis form a predetermined exit angle, and accepting from the exit hole electrons that are deflected and converged by the energy analyzer; and a detector detecting electrons transmitted through the projection lens.
However, Krizek discloses that the electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer is configured as an imaging-type electron spectrometer (paragraph 0070) characterized by providing an input lens (FIG. 3, elements 6, 7, 8, 9) having the incident hole (FIG. 3, element 39) on the lens axis (FIG. 3, vertical axis of elements 6, 7, 8, 9), and accepting the electrons emitted from a sample (FIG. 3, element 1) and emitting the electrons to the incident hole (FIG. 3, element 39);
a projection lens (FIG. 3, elements 29, 30, 31, 32) having the exit hole (FIG. 3, aperture at exit plane 21) on the projection lens axis (FIG. 3, vertical axis of elements 29, 30, 31, 32), and accepting from the exit hole electrons that are deflected and converged by the energy analyzer (FIG. 3); and
a detector detecting electrons transmitted through the projection lens (FIG. 3, detector 22 comprising detectors 33, 35, 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Mase in view of Watson to include that the electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer is configured as an imaging-type electron spectrometer characterized by providing an input lens having the incident hole on the lens axis, and accepting the electrons emitted from a sample and emitting the electrons to the incident hole; a projection lens having the exit hole on the projection lens axis, and accepting from the exit hole electrons that are deflected and converged by the energy analyzer; and a detector detecting electrons transmitted through the projection lens, based on the teachings of Krizek that this configuration enables optimization of magnification and energy resolution (Krizek, paragraph 0062).
Mase in view of Watson and Krizek fails to disclose the input lens being disposed so that the lens axis and the rotation axis form a predetermined incident angle, and the projection lens being disposed so that the projection lens axis and the rotation axis form a predetermined exit angle.
However, Shchepunov discloses the input lens (FIG. 4C, element
L
1
) being disposed so that the lens axis (FIG. 4C, axis of lens
L
1
parallel to the X axis) and the rotation axis (FIG. 4C, Y axis) form a predetermined incident angle (FIG. 4C: the X and Y axes form a 90° incident angle), and
the projection lens (FIG. 4C, element
L
4
) being disposed so that the projection lens axis (FIG. 4C, axis of lens
L
4
parallel to the X axis) and the rotation axis (FIG. 4C, Y axis) form a predetermined exit angle (FIG. 4C: the X and Y axes form a 90° exit angle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Mase in view of Watson and Krizek to include the input lens being disposed so that the lens axis and the rotation axis form a predetermined incident angle, and the projection lens being disposed so that the projection lens axis and the rotation axis form a predetermined exit angle, based on the teachings of Shchepunov that this provides easy tuning of focusing properties (Shchepunov, column 28, lines 50-67).
Claims 13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mase in view of Watson and Shchepunov as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Tusche et al. (DE Patent No. 102013005173 A1), hereinafter Tusche (English machine translation provided in a prior office action), and Krizek.
Regarding claim 13, Mase in view of Watson and Shchepunov as applied to claim 6 discloses the electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer according to claim 6.
In addition, Shchepunov discloses an input lens (FIG. 4C, lens
L
1
) being disposed so that the lens axis (FIG. 4C, axis of lens
L
1
parallel to the X axis) and the rotation axis (FIG. 4C, Y axis) form a predetermined incident angle (FIG. 4C: the X and Y axes form a 90° incident angle); and
an electrostatic lens (FIG. 4C, lens
L
4
) being disposed so that the electrostatic lens axis (FIG. 4C, axis of lens
L
4
parallel to the X axis) and the rotation axis (FIG. 4C, Y axis) form a predetermined exit angle (FIG. 4C: the X and Y axes form a 90° exit angle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Mase in view of Watson and Shchepunov to include an input lens being disposed so that the lens axis and the rotation axis form a predetermined incident angle; and an electrostatic lens being disposed so that the electrostatic lens axis and the rotation axis form a predetermined exit angle, based on the additional teachings of Shchepunov that this provides easy tuning of focusing properties (Shchepunov, column 28, lines 50-67).
Mase in view of Watson and Shchepunov fails to disclose that a deflection angle of the electrons is 90°.
However, optimizing the deflection angle of the electrons is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Shchepunov teaches that “[t]he angular dispersion can be defined as the derivative d
v
x
1
/ d
K
x
0
…Geometry parameters of the sectors
S
1
(
S
3
) and
S
2
(curvature radii, deflection angles, distance between the sectors in the flight direction, etc.)…are preferably chosen so that d
v
x
1
/ d
K
x
0
=0” (column 28, lines 24-32, emphasis added). As such, Shchepunov identifies the deflection angle of the electrons as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., affecting the angular dispersion. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the deflection angle of the electrons and identifies said deflection angle as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the deflection angle of the electrons to meet the claimed angles since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Mase in view of Watson and Shchepunov fails to disclose a spin vector distribution imaging apparatus characterized by providing an input lens having the incident hole on the lens axis and accepting the electrons emitted from a sample and emitting the electrons to the incident hole; an electrostatic lens having the exit hole on the electrostatic lens axis and accepting from the exit hole electrons that are deflected and converged by the energy analyzer; a two-dimensional spin filter disposed on the electrostatic lens axis at the exit side of the electrostatic lens; a projection lens that accepts electrons reflected by the two-dimensional spin filter; and a detector that detects the electrons transmitted through the projection lens.
However, Tusche discloses a spin vector distribution imaging apparatus (page 1, last paragraph to page 2, second paragraph);
an electrostatic lens (FIG. 6, element 14);
a two-dimensional spin filter (FIG. 6, element 41 acts in the Z and R dimensions) disposed on the electrostatic lens axis (FIG. 6: element 41 is disposed on the Z axis) at the exit side of the electrostatic lens (FIG. 6: electrons travel from the left to the right in the figure; therefore, spin filter 41 is at the exit (right) side of the electrostatic lens 14);
a projection lens (FIG. 6, element 60) that accepts electrons reflected by the two-dimensional spin filter (FIG. 6: electrons reflected by spin filter 41 are transmitted to element 60); and
a detector that detects the electrons transmitted through the projection lens (FIG. 6: electrons travel through element 60 to be detected by detector 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Mase in view of Watson and Shchepunov to include a spin vector distribution imaging apparatus; an electrostatic lens; a two-dimensional spin filter disposed on the electrostatic lens axis at the exit side of the electrostatic lens; a projection lens that accepts electrons reflected by the two-dimensional spin filter; and a detector that detects the electrons transmitted through the projection lens, based on the teachings of Tusche that these components enable the study of previously difficult scenarios, such as the simultaneous generation of two electrons with different energies or ultrafast dynamic processes (Tusche, page 5, paragraph 2).
Mase in view of Watson, Shchepunov, and Tusche fails to disclose the input lens having the incident hole on the lens axis, and accepting the electrons emitted from a sample and emitting the electrons to the incident hole; the electrostatic lens having the exit hole on the electrostatic lens axis, and accepting from the exit hole electrons that are deflected and converged by the energy analyzer.
However, Krizek discloses an input lens (FIG. 3, elements 6, 7, 8, 9) having the incident hole (FIG. 3, element 39) on the lens axis (FIG. 3, vertical axis of elements 6, 7, 8, 9), and accepting the electrons emitted from a sample (FIG. 3, element 1) and emitting the electrons to the incident hole (FIG. 3, element 39); and
a lens (FIG. 3, elements 29, 30, 31, 32) having the exit hole (FIG. 3, aperture at exit plane 21) on the lens axis (FIG. 3, vertical axis of elements 29, 30, 31, 32), and accepting from the exit hole electrons that are deflected and converged by the energy analyzer (FIG. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Mase in view of Watson, Shchepunov, and Tusche to include an input lens having the incident hole on the lens axis, and accepting the electrons emitted from a sample and emitting the electrons to the incident hole, and a lens having the exit hole on the lens axis, and accepting from the exit hole electrons that are deflected and converged by the energy analyzer, based on the teachings of Krizek that this configuration enables optimization of magnification and energy resolution (Krizek, paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 16, Mase in view of Watson and Shchepunov as applied to claim 6 discloses the electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer according to claim 6.
In addition, Mase discloses at least one additional electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer (FIG. 1, element 30).
In addition, Shchepunov discloses an input lens (FIG. 4C, lens
L
1
) being disposed so that the lens axis (FIG. 4C, axis of lens
L
1
parallel to the X axis) and a rotation axis (FIG. 4C, Y axis) form a predetermined incident angle (FIG. 4C: the X and Y axes form a 90° incident angle); and
an electrostatic lens (FIG. 4C, lens
L
4
) being disposed so that the electrostatic lens axis (FIG. 4C, axis of lens
L
4
parallel to the X axis) and the rotation axis (FIG. 4C, Y axis) form a predetermined exit angle (FIG. 4C: the X and Y axes form a 90° exit angle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Mase in view of Watson and Shchepunov to include an input lens being disposed so that the lens axis and a rotation axis form a predetermined incident angle; and an electrostatic lens being disposed so that the electrostatic lens axis and the rotation axis form a predetermined exit angle, based on the additional teachings of Shchepunov that this provides easy tuning of focusing properties (Shchepunov, column 28, lines 50-67).
Mase in view of Watson and Shchepunov fails to disclose that a deflection angle of the electrons is 45°, 60°, 120°, 135°, or 150°.
However, optimizing the deflection angle of the electrons is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Shchepunov teaches that “[t]he angular dispersion can be defined as the derivative d
v
x
1
/ d
K
x
0
…Geometry parameters of the sectors
S
1
(
S
3
) and
S
2
(curvature radii, deflection angles, distance between the sectors in the flight direction, etc.)…are preferably chosen so that d
v
x
1
/ d
K
x
0
=0” (column 28, lines 24-32, emphasis added). As such, Shchepunov identifies the deflection angle of the electrons as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., affecting the angular dispersion. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the deflection angle of the electrons and identifies said deflection angle as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the deflection angle of the electrons to meet the claimed angles since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Mase in view of Watson and Shchepunov fails to disclose the electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer comprising a spin vector distribution imaging apparatus characterized by providing an input lens having an incident hole on a lens axis, and accepting the electrons emitted from a sample and emitting the electrons to the incident hole; an electrostatic lens having an exit hole on an electrostatic lens axis, and accepting from the exit hole electrons that are deflected and converged by the energy analyzer; a two-dimensional spin filter disposed on the electrostatic lens axis at the exit side of the electrostatic lens; a projection lens that accepts electrons reflected by the two-dimensional spin filter; and a detector that detects the electrons transmitted through the projection lens.
However, Tusche discloses the electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer comprising a spin vector distribution imaging apparatus (page 1, last paragraph to page 2, second paragraph) characterized by providing an input lens (FIG. 6, element 11);
an electrostatic lens (FIG. 6, element 14);
a two-dimensional spin filter (FIG. 6, element 41 acts in the Z and R dimensions) disposed on the electrostatic lens axis (FIG. 6: element 41 is disposed on the Z axis) at the exit side of the electrostatic lens (FIG. 6: electrons travel from the left to the right in the figure; therefore, spin filter 41 is at the exit (right) side of the electrostatic lens 14);
a projection lens (FIG. 6, element 60) that accepts electrons reflected by the two-dimensional spin filter (FIG. 6: electrons reflected by spin filter 41 are transmitted to element 60); and
a detector (FIG. 6, element 30) that detects the electrons transmitted through the projection lens (FIG. 6: electrons are transmitted through projection lens 60 to detector 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Mase in view of Watson and Shchepunov to include the electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer comprising a spin vector distribution imaging apparatus characterized by providing an input lens; an electrostatic lens; a two-dimensional spin filter disposed on the electrostatic lens axis at the exit side of the electrostatic lens; a projection lens that accepts electrons reflected by the two-dimensional spin filter; and a detector that detects the electrons transmitted through the projection lens, based on the teachings of Tusche that these components enable the study of previously difficult scenarios, such as the simultaneous generation of two electrons with different energies or ultrafast dynamic processes (Tusche, page 5, paragraph 2).
Mase in view of Watson, Shchepunov, and Tusche fails to disclose the input lens having an incident hole on a lens axis, and accepting the electrons emitted from a sample and emitting the electrons to the incident hole; and an electrostatic lens having an exit hole on an electrostatic lens axis, and accepting from the exit hole electrons that are deflected and converged by the energy analyzer.
However, Krizek discloses the input lens (FIG. 3, elements 6, 7, 8, 9) having an incident hole (FIG. 3, element 39) on a lens axis (FIG. 3, vertical axis of elements 6, 7, 8, 9) and accepting the electrons emitted from a sample (FIG. 3, element 1) and emitting the electrons to the incident hole (FIG. 3, element 39); and
a lens (FIG. 3, elements 29, 30, 31, 32) having an exit hole (FIG. 3, aperture at exit plane 21) on the lens axis (FIG. 3, vertical axis of elements 29, 30, 31, 32) and accepting from the exit hole electrons that are deflected and converged by the energy analyzer (FIG. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Mase in view of Watson, Shchepunov, and Tusche to include the input lens having an incident hole on a lens axis and accepting the electrons emitted from a sample and emitting the electrons to the incident hole; and a lens having an exit hole on the lens axis and accepting from the exit hole electrons that are deflected and converged by the energy analyzer, based on the teachings of Krizek that this configuration enables optimization of magnification and energy resolution (Krizek, paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 17, Mase in view of Watson, Shchepunov, Tusche, and Krizek as applied to claim 13 discloses the spin vector distribution imaging apparatus according to claim 13.
In addition, Tusche discloses a spin rotator (FIG. 6, element 40) inside or outside at least one of the input lens and the electrostatic lens (FIG. 6: element 40 is outside the electrostatic lens 14) that rotates the spin 90° in a plane perpendicular to each lens axis (page 10, paragraph 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Mase in view of Watson, Tusche, Krizek, and Shchepunov to include a spin rotator inside or outside at least one of the input lens and the electrostatic lens that rotates the spin 90° in a plane perpendicular to each lens axis, based on the additional teachings of Tusche that this provides the benefit of eliminating asymmetries in spin-dependent diffraction analysis (Tusche, page 10, paragraph 1).
Claims 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mase in view of Watson as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Shchepunov, Tusche, and Krizek.
Regarding claim 15, Mase in view of Watson as applied to claim 9 discloses the electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer according to claim 9.
Mase in view of Watson fails to disclose that a deflection angle of the electrons is 90°, configured as a spin vector distribution imaging apparatus characterized by providing an input lens having the incident hole on the lens axis, being disposed so that the lens axis and the rotation axis form a predetermined incident angle, and accepting the electrons emitted from a sample and emitting the electrons to the incident hole; an electrostatic lens having the exit hole on the electrostatic lens axis, being disposed so that the electrostatic lens axis and the rotation axis form a predetermined exit angle, and accepting from the exit hole electrons that are deflected and converged by the energy analyzer; a two-dimensional spin filter disposed on the electrostatic lens axis at the exit side of the electrostatic lens; a first projection lens accepting the electrons reflected by the two-dimensional spin filter and a first detector detecting the electrons transmitted through the first projection lens; a second projection lens having the exit hole on the projection lens axis, being disposed so that the projection lens axis and the rotation axis form a predetermined exit angle, and accepting from the exit hole electrons that are converged without deflection by the energy analyzer; and a second detector for detecting electrons transmitted through the second projection lens.
However, Shchepunov discloses an input lens (FIG. 4C, lens
L
1
) being disposed so that the lens axis (FIG. 4C, axis of lens
L
1
parallel to the X axis) and the rotation axis (FIG. 4C, Y axis) form a predetermined incident angle (FIG. 4C: the X and Y axes form a 90° incident angle);
an electrostatic lens (FIG. 4C, lens
L
3
) being disposed so that the electrostatic lens axis (FIG. 4C, axis passing through lens
L
3
) and the rotation axis (FIG. 4C, Y axis) form a predetermined exit angle (FIG. 4C: the axis of lens
L
3
is angled with respect to the Y axis); and
a projection lens (FIG. 4C, lens
L
4
) being disposed so that the projection lens axis (FIG. 4C, axis of lens
L
4
parallel to the X axis) and the rotation axis (FIG. 4C, Y axis) form a predetermined exit angle (FIG. 4C: the X and Y axes form a 90° exit angle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Mase in view of Watson, Tusche, and Krizek to include an input lens being disposed so that the lens axis and the rotation axis forming a predetermined incident angle; an electrostatic lens being disposed so that the electrostatic lens axis and the rotation axis form a predetermined exit angle; and a projection lens being disposed so that the projection lens axis and the rotation axis form a predetermined exit angle, based on the teachings of Shchepunov that this provides easy tuning of focusing properties (Shchepunov, column 28, lines 50-67).
Mase in view of Watson and Shchepunov fails to disclose that a deflection angle of the electrons is 90°.
However, optimizing the deflection angle of the electrons is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Shchepunov teaches that “[t]he angular dispersion can be defined as the derivative d
v
x
1
/ d
K
x
0
…Geometry parameters of the sectors
S
1
(
S
3
) and
S
2
(curvature radii, deflection angles, distance between the sectors in the flight direction, etc.)…are preferably chosen so that d
v
x
1
/ d
K
x
0
=0” (column 28, lines 24-32, emphasis added). As such, Shchepunov identifies the deflection angle of the electrons as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., affecting the angular dispersion. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the deflection angle of the electrons and identifies said deflection angle as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the deflection angle of the electrons to meet the claimed angles since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Mase in view of Watson and Shchepunov fails to disclose a spin vector distribution imaging apparatus characterized by providing an input lens having the incident hole on the lens axis, and accepting the electrons emitted from a sample and emitting the electrons to the incident hole; an electrostatic lens having the exit hole on the electrostatic lens axis, and accepting from the exit hole electrons that are deflected and converged by the energy analyzer; a first projection lens accepting the electrons reflected by the two-dimensional spin filter and a first detector detecting the electrons transmitted through the first projection lens; and a second projection lens having the exit hole on the projection lens axis, and accepting from the exit hole electrons that are converged without deflection by the energy analyzer; and a second detector for detecting electrons transmitted through the second projection lens.
However, Tusche discloses a spin vector distribution imaging apparatus (page 1, last paragraph to page 2, second paragraph) characterized by providing an input lens (FIG. 6, element 11);
an electrostatic lens (FIG. 6, element 14); a two-dimensional spin filter disposed on the electrostatic lens axis at the exit side of the electrostatic lens;
a two-dimensional spin filter (FIG. 6, element 41 acts in the Z and R dimensions) disposed on the electrostatic lens axis (FIG. 6: element 41 is disposed on the Z axis) at the exit side of the electrostatic lens (FIG. 6: electrons travel from the left to the right in the figure; therefore, spin filter 41 is at the exit (right) side of the electrostatic lens 14);
a first projection lens (FIG. 6, element 60) accepting the electrons reflected by the two-dimensional spin filter (FIG. 6: electrons reflected by spin filter 41 are transmitted to element 60) and a first detector (FIG. 6, element 30) detecting the electrons transmitted through the first projection lens (FIG. 6: electrons are transmitted through first projection lens 60 to detector 30); and
electrons that are converged without deflection (FIG. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Mase in view of Watson and Shchepunov to include that a deflection angle of the electrons is 90°, configured as a spin vector distribution imaging apparatus characterized by providing an input lens; an electrostatic lens; a two-dimensional spin filter disposed on the electrostatic lens axis at the exit side of the electrostatic lens; a first projection lens accepting the electrons reflected by the two-dimensional spin filter and a first detector detecting the electrons transmitted through the first projection lens; and electrons that are converged without deflection, based on the teachings of Tusche that these components enable the study of previously difficult scenarios, such as the simultaneous generation of two electrons with different energies or ultrafast dynamic processes (Tusche, page 5, paragraph 2).
Mase in view of Watson, Shchepunov, and Tusche fails to disclose an input lens having the incident hole on the lens axis, and accepting the electrons emitted from a sample and emitting the electrons to the incident hole; an electrostatic lens having the exit hole on the electrostatic lens axis, and accepting from the exit hole electrons that are deflected and converged by the energy analyzer; a second projection lens having the exit hole on the projection lens axis, and accepting from the exit hole electrons that are converged by the energy analyzer; and a second detector for detecting electrons transmitted through the second projection lens.
However, Krizek discloses an input lens (FIG. 3, elements 6, 7, 8, 9) having the incident hole (FIG. 3, element 39) on the lens axis (FIG. 3, vertical axis of elements 6, 7, 8, 9) and accepting the electrons emitted from a sample (FIG. 3, element 1) and emitting the electrons to the incident hole (FIG. 3, element 39);
an electrostatic lens (FIG. 3, element 29) having the exit hole (FIG. 3, aperture at exit plane 21) on the electrostatic lens axis (FIG. 3, vertical axis of element 29) and accepting from the exit hole electrons that are deflected and converged by the energy analyzer (FIG. 3);
a second projection lens (FIG. 3, element 30) having the exit hole (FIG. 3, aperture at exit plane 21) on the projection lens axis (FIG. 3, vertical axis of element 30) and accepting from the exit hole electrons that are converged by the energy analyzer (FIG. 3); and
a second detector for detecting electrons transmitted through the second projection lens (FIG. 3, detector 35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Mase in view of Watson, Shchepunov, and Tusche to include an input lens having the incident hole on the lens axis and accepting the electrons emitted from a sample and emitting the electrons to the incident hole; a lens having the exit hole on the lens axis and accepting from the exit hole electrons that are deflected and converged by the energy analyzer; a second projection lens having the exit hole on the projection lens axis and accepting from the exit hole electrons that are converged by the energy analyzer; and a second detector for detecting electrons transmitted through the second projection lens, based on the teachings of Krizek that this configuration enables optimization of magnification and energy resolution (Krizek, paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 18, Mase in view of Watson as applied to claim 9 discloses the electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer according to claim 9.
Mase in view of Watson fails to disclose that a deflection angle of the electrons is 90°, configured as a spin vector distribution imaging apparatus characterized by providing an input lens having the incident hole on the lens axis, being disposed so that the lens axis and the rotation axis form a predetermined incident angle, and accepting the electrons emitted from a sample and emitting the electrons to the incident hole; an electrostatic lens having the exit hole on the electrostatic lens axis, being disposed so that the electrostatic lens axis and the rotation axis form a predetermined exit angle, and accepting from the exit hole electrons that are deflected and converged by the energy analyzer; a two-dimensional spin filter disposed on the electrostatic lens axis at the exit side of the electrostatic lens; a projection lens that accepts the electrons reflected by the spin filter; and a detector that detects the electrons transmitted through the projection lens.
However, Shchepunov discloses an input lens (FIG. 4C, lens
L
1
) being disposed so that the lens axis (FIG. 4C, axis of lens
L
1
parallel to the X axis) and the rotation axis (FIG. 4C, Y axis) form a predetermined incident angle (FIG. 4C: the X and Y axes form a 90° incident angle); and
an electrostatic lens (FIG. 4C, lens
L
4
) being disposed so that the electrostatic lens axis (FIG. 4C, axis of lens
L
4
parallel to the X axis) and the rotation axis (FIG. 4C, Y axis) form a predetermined exit angle (FIG. 4C: the X and Y axes form a 90° exit angle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Mase in view of Watson to include an input lens being disposed so that the lens axis and the rotation axis form a predetermined incident angle; and an electrostatic lens being disposed so that the electrostatic lens axis and the rotation axis form a predetermined exit angle, based on the teachings of Shchepunov that this provides easy tuning of focusing properties (Shchepunov, column 28, lines 50-67).
Mase in view of Watson and Shchepunov fails to disclose that a deflection angle of the electrons is 90°.
However, optimizing the deflection angle of the electrons is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Shchepunov teaches that “[t]he angular dispersion can be defined as the derivative d
v
x
1
/ d
K
x
0
…Geometry parameters of the sectors
S
1
(
S
3
) and
S
2
(curvature radii, deflection angles, distance between the sectors in the flight direction, etc.)…are preferably chosen so that d
v
x
1
/ d
K
x
0
=0” (column 28, lines 24-32, emphasis added). As such, Shchepunov identifies the deflection angle of the electrons as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., affecting the angular dispersion. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the deflection angle of the electrons and identifies said deflection angle as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the deflection angle of the electrons to meet the claimed angles since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Mase in view of Watson and Shchepunov fails to disclose a spin vector distribution imaging apparatus characterized by providing an input lens having the incident hole on the lens axis, and accepting the electrons emitted from a sample and emitting the electrons to the incident hole; an electrostatic lens having the exit hole on the electrostatic lens axis, and accepting from the exit hole electrons that are deflected and converged by the energy analyzer; a two-dimensional spin filter disposed on the electrostatic lens axis at the exit side of the electrostatic lens; a projection lens that accepts the electrons reflected by the spin filter; and a detector that detects the electrons transmitted through the projection lens.
However, Tusche discloses a spin vector distribution imaging apparatus (page 1, last paragraph to page 2, second paragraph) characterized by providing an input lens (FIG. 6, element 11);
an electrostatic lens (FIG. 6, element 14);
a two-dimensional spin filter (FIG. 6, element 41 acts in the Z and R dimensions) disposed on the electrostatic lens axis (FIG. 6: element 41 is disposed on the Z axis) at the exit side of the electrostatic lens (FIG. 6: electrons travel from the left to the right in the figure; therefore, spin filter 41 is at the exit (right) side of the electrostatic lens 14);
a projection lens (FIG. 6, element 60) that accepts the electrons reflected by the spin filter (FIG. 6: electrons reflected by spin filter 41 are transmitted to element 60); and
a detector (FIG. 6, element 30) that detects the electrons transmitted through the projection lens (FIG. 6: electrons are transmitted through projection lens 60 to detector 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Mase in view of Watson and Shchepunov to include that a deflection angle of the electrons is 90°, configured as a spin vector distribution imaging apparatus characterized by providing an input lens; an electrostatic lens; a two-dimensional spin filter disposed on the electrostatic lens axis at the exit side of the electrostatic lens; a projection lens that accepts the electrons reflected by the spin filter; and a detector that detects the electrons transmitted through the projection lens, based on the teachings of Tusche that these components enable the study of previously difficult scenarios, such as the simultaneous generation of two electrons with different energies or ultrafast dynamic processes (Tusche, page 5, paragraph 2).
Mase in view of Watson, Shchepunov, and Tusche fails to disclose the input lens having the incident hole on the lens axis, and accepting the electrons emitted from a sample and emitting the electrons to the incident hole; and an electrostatic lens having the exit hole on the electrostatic lens axis, and accepting from the exit hole electrons that are deflected and converged by the energy analyzer.
However, Krizek discloses an input lens (FIG. 3, elements 6, 7, 8, 9) having the incident hole (FIG. 3, element 39) on the lens axis (FIG. 3, vertical axis of elements 6, 7, 8, 9) and accepting the electrons emitted from a sample (FIG. 3, element 1) and emitting the electrons to the incident hole (FIG. 3, element 39); and
an electrostatic lens (FIG. 3, elements 29, 30, 31, 32) having the exit hole (FIG. 3, aperture at exit plane 21) on the electrostatic lens axis (FIG. 3, vertical axis of elements 29, 30, 31, 32) and accepting from the exit hole electrons that are deflected and converged by the energy analyzer (FIG. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Mase in view of Watson, Shchepunov, and Tusche to include an input lens having the incident hole on the lens axis and accepting the electrons emitted from a sample and emitting the electrons to the incident hole; and an electrostatic lens having the exit hole on the electrostatic lens axis and accepting from the exit hole electrons that are deflected and converged by the energy analyzer, based on the teachings of Krizek that this configuration enables optimization of magnification and energy resolution (Krizek, paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 19, Mase in view of Watson as applied to claim 9 discloses the electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer according to claim 9.
In addition, Mase discloses at least one additional electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer (FIG. 1, element 30).
Mase in view of Watson fails to disclose a spin vector distribution imaging apparatus characterized by providing an input lens having the incident hole on the lens axis, being disposed so that the lens axis and the rotation axis form a predetermined incident angle, and accepting the electrons emitted from a sample and emitting the electrons to the incident hole; an electrostatic lens having the exit hole on the electrostatic lens axis, being disposed so that the electrostatic lens axis and the rotation axis form a predetermined exit angle, and accepting from the exit hole electrons that are deflected and converged by the energy analyzer; a two-dimensional spin filter disposed on the electrostatic lens axis at the exit side of the electrostatic lens; a projection lens that accepts the electrons reflected by the spin filter; and a detector that detects the electrons transmitted through the projection lens.
However, Shchepunov discloses an input lens (FIG. 4C, lens
L
1
) being disposed so that the lens axis (FIG. 4C, axis of lens
L
1
parallel to the X axis) and the rotation axis (FIG. 4C, Y axis) form a predetermined incident angle (FIG. 4C: the X and Y axes form a 90° incident angle); and
an electrostatic lens (FIG. 4C, lens
L
4
) being disposed so that the electrostatic lens axis (FIG. 4C, axis of lens
L
4
parallel to the X axis) and the rotation axis (FIG. 4C, Y axis) form a predetermined exit angle (FIG. 4C: the X and Y axes form a 90° exit angle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Mase in view of Watson to include an input lens being disposed so that the lens axis and the rotation axis form a predetermined incident angle; and an electrostatic lens being disposed so that the electrostatic lens axis and the rotation axis form a predetermined exit angle, based on the teachings of Shchepunov that this provides easy tuning of focusing properties (Shchepunov, column 28, lines 50-67).
Mase in view of Watson and Shchepunov fails to disclose a spin vector distribution imaging apparatus characterized by providing an input lens having the incident hole on the lens axis, and accepting the electrons emitted from a sample and emitting the electrons to the incident hole; an electrostatic lens having the exit hole on the electrostatic lens axis, and accepting from the exit hole electrons that are deflected and converged by the energy analyzer; a two-dimensional spin filter disposed on the electrostatic lens axis at the exit side of the electrostatic lens; a projection lens that accepts the electrons reflected by the spin filter; and a detector that detects the electrons transmitted through the projection lens.
However, Tusche discloses a spin vector distribution imaging apparatus (page 1, last paragraph to page 2, second paragraph) characterized by providing an input lens (FIG. 6, element 11);
an electrostatic lens (FIG. 6, element 14);
a two-dimensional spin filter (FIG. 6, element 41 acts in the Z and R dimensions) disposed on the electrostatic lens axis (FIG. 6: element 41 is disposed on the Z axis) at the exit side of the electrostatic lens (FIG. 6: electrons travel from the left to the right in the figure; therefore, spin filter 41 is at the exit (right) side of the electrostatic lens 14);
a projection lens (FIG. 6, element 60) that accepts the electrons reflected by the spin filter (FIG. 6: electrons reflected by spin filter 41 are transmitted to element 60); and
a detector (FIG. 6, element 30) that detects the electrons transmitted through the projection lens (FIG. 6: electrons are transmitted through projection lens 60 to detector 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Mase in view of Watson and Shchepunov to include a spin vector distribution imaging apparatus characterized by providing an input lens; an electrostatic lens; a two-dimensional spin filter disposed on the electrostatic lens axis at the exit side of the electrostatic lens; a projection lens that accepts the electrons reflected by the spin filter; and a detector that detects the electrons transmitted through the projection lens, based on the teachings of Tusche that these components enable the study of previously difficult scenarios, such as the simultaneous generation of two electrons with different energies or ultrafast dynamic processes (Tusche, page 5, paragraph 2).
Mase in view of Watson, Shchepunov, and Tusche fails to disclose an input lens having the incident hole on the lens axis, and accepting the electrons emitted from a sample and emitting the electrons to the incident hole; an electrostatic lens having the exit hole on the electrostatic lens axis, and accepting from the exit hole electrons that are deflected and converged by the energy analyzer.
However, Krizek discloses an input lens (FIG. 3, elements 6, 7, 8, 9) having the incident hole (FIG. 3, element 39) on the lens axis (FIG. 3, vertical axis of elements 6, 7, 8, 9) and accepting the electrons emitted from a sample (FIG. 3, element 1) and emitting the electrons to the incident hole (FIG. 3, element 39); and
an electrostatic lens (FIG. 3, elements 29, 30, 31, 32) having the exit hole (FIG. 3, aperture at exit plane 21) on the electrostatic lens axis (FIG. 3, vertical axis of elements 29, 30, 31, 32) and accepting from the exit hole electrons that are deflected and converged by the energy analyzer (FIG. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Mase in view of Watson, Shchepunov, and Tusche to include an input lens having the incident hole on the lens axis and accepting the electrons emitted from a sample and emitting the electrons to the incident hole; and an electrostatic lens having the exit hole on the electrostatic lens axis and accepting from the exit hole electrons that are deflected and converged by the energy analyzer, based on the teachings of Krizek that this configuration enables optimization of magnification and energy resolution (Krizek, paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 20, Mase in view of Watson, Shchepunov, Krizek, and Tusche as applied to claim 18 discloses the spin vector distribution imaging apparatus according to claim 18.
In addition, Tusche discloses a spin rotator (FIG. 6, element 40) inside or outside at least one of the input lens and the electrostatic lens (FIG. 6: element 40 is outside the electrostatic lens 14) that rotates the spin 90° in a plane perpendicular to each lens axis (page 10, paragraph 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Mase in view of Watson, Shchepunov, Krizek, and Tusche to include a spin rotator inside or outside at least one of the input lens and the electrostatic lens that rotates the spin 90° in a plane perpendicular to each lens axis, based on the additional teachings of Tusche that this provides the benefit of eliminating asymmetries in spin-dependent diffraction analysis (Tusche, page 10, paragraph 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 12 is allowed because the prior art of record fails to teach “a mirror disposed in the exit hole of the energy analyzer and normal to the rotation axis” in combination with the additional limitations of claim 12.
The closest prior art of record, Mase, teaches an electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer (FIG. 1, element 20) comprising:
one or a plurality of outer electrodes (FIG. 1, elements 22, 24) and an inner electrode (FIG. 1, element 21) being disposed along the shapes of two rotation bodies formed concentrically (page 2, paragraph beginning “A cylindrical first inner electrode…”) for a common rotation axis (FIG. 1, axis A-A);
an electron incident hole and exit hole being formed in the outer electrodes at both ends on the rotation axis (FIG. 1: the incident hole is the gap between electrodes 24 adjacent sample S; the exit hole is the gap between electrodes 24 adjacent element 23);
a voltage applying means for applying a voltage for accelerating and decelerating electrons to the outer electrode and the inner electrode (page 3, last paragraph); and
wherein the inner-surface shape of the outer electrode is a shape becoming smaller in diameter toward the incident hole and becoming smaller in diameter toward the exit hole (FIG. 1: the inner surface of electrode 22 tapers from the center towards the incident and exit holes);
wherein the outer-surface shape of the inner electrode is a shape that becomes smaller in diameter toward the incident hole, a rod shape extending toward the incident hole, or a shape that becomes larger in diameter at the end on the incident hole side, and the outer-surface shape of the inner electrode is a shape that becomes smaller in diameter toward the exit hole, a rod shape extending toward the exit hole, or a shape that becomes larger in diameter at the end on the exit hole side (FIG. 1: the outer surface of electrode 21 tapers from the center towards the incident and exit holes); and
wherein a central trajectory is at a predetermined incident angle with the rotation axis (FIG. 1: the trajectory of electrons X is at an angle with respect to the rotation axis A-A), an applied voltage which is applied to each electrode is adjusted such that the central trajectory of electrons incident from the incident hole converges on the position of the exit hole at a predetermined exit angle with the rotation axis.
However, Mase fails to teach a mirror or any similar reflecting element in the exit hole. Therefore, the prior art of record fails to teach “a mirror disposed in the exit hole of the energy analyzer and normal to the rotation axis” as currently claimed.
Claim 14 is allowed because the prior art of record fails to teach “a two-dimensional spin filter disposed in the exit hole of the energy analyzer and normal to the rotation axis” in combination with the additional limitations of claim 14.
The closest prior art of record, Tusche, teaches a two-dimensional spin filter (FIG. 6, spin filter 41 acts in the Z and R dimensions).
However, Tusche fails to teach that the spin filter is disposed in the exit hole; rather, the spin filter of Tusche is external to the exit hole. Therefore, the prior art of record fails to teach “a two-dimensional spin filter disposed in the exit hole of the energy analyzer and normal to the rotation axis” as currently claimed.
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 ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights