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 February 2026, with respect to the drawings, the specification, and the claims have been entered. Therefore, the objections to the drawings and claim 19, and the rejections of claims 1, 5-15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 16 has been entered; however, the amendment necessitates a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d). See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the remarks filed 11 February 2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. The remarks have been placed in the application file, but the references referred to therein have not been considered.
Applicant is reminded that 37 CFR 1.98(b)(5) requires that each non-patent literature publication listed in an information disclosure statement must be identified by publisher, author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date, and place of publication.
Applicant is further reminded that the date of any resubmission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 16 and 19 are 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, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 16 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends because claim 6 recites that “a deflection angle of the electrons is 90°”, but claim 16 recites that “a deflection angle of the electrons…is 45°, 60°, 120°, 135°, or 150°”. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claim 19 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends because it replaces the “electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer with the deflection angle of 90°” disclosed in claim 18. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) 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.
Claims 1-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kholine et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0147585 A1), hereinafter Kholine, in view of Watson (U.S. Patent No. 3,783,280 A), hereinafter Watson.
Regarding claim 1, Kholine discloses an electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer (FIG. 1) comprising:
one or a plurality of outer electrodes (FIG. 1, element 15) and an inner electrode (FIG. 1, element 14) being disposed along the shapes of two rotation bodies (FIG. 2, rotation bodies with radii
R
1
and
R
2
) formed concentrically (Merriam-Webster.com defines ‘concentric’ as ‘having a common axis’; FIG. 2 shows the rotation bodies having the X axis as a common axis) for a common rotation axis (FIG. 2, X axis);
an electron incident hole (FIG. 3, hole with radius
r
2
) and exit hole (FIG. 4, hole with radius
r
6
) being formed in the outer electrodes at both ends on the rotation axis (FIGs. 3, 4: the holes are formed from the X axis to the outer electrode 15);
a voltage applying means for applying a voltage for accelerating and decelerating electrons to the outer electrode and the inner electrode (paragraph 0026); 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. 2: the distance between the X axis and the inner surface of electrode 15 decreases from the center of electrode 15 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 (FIG. 2: the distance between the X axis and the outer surface of electrode 14 decreases from the center of electrode 14 towards the incident and exit holes), 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 (FIG. 2: the distance between the X axis and the outer surface of electrode 14 decreases from the center of electrode 14 towards the incident and exit holes), a rod shape extending toward the exit hole, or a shape that becomes larger in diameter at the end on the exit hole side;
wherein a central trajectory is at a predetermined incident angle with the rotation axis (paragraph 0036), an applied voltage which is applied to each electrode is adjusted (paragraph 0037) such that the central trajectory of electrons incident from the incident hole converges on the position of the exit hole (FIG. 2, point f) at a predetermined exit angle with the rotation axis (paragraph 0036).
Kholine 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, Kholine teaches that “[t]he potential difference between the inner and outer electrodes 14, 15 determines the energy of charged particles brought to a focus at the detector 21 by the energy dispersive electric field created in space 18 between the inner and outer electrode surfaces IS, OS” (paragraph 0026). As such, Kholine identifies the voltage as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., adjusting the energy of focused charged particles. 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.
Kholine 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 Kholine 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, Kholine in view of Watson as applied to claim 1 discloses the electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer according to claim 1.
In addition, Kholine discloses that the inner-surface shape of the outer electrode (FIG. 2, element OS) and the outer-surface shape of the inner electrode (FIG. 2, element IS) are symmetrical with respect to a plane (FIG. 2, meridonal plane of symmetry M) perpendicularly intersecting a line connecting the incident hole and the exit hole at the midpoint of the line (FIG. 2, X axis).
Regarding claim 3, Kholine in view of Watson as applied to claim 1 discloses the electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer according to claim 1.
In addition, Kholine 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. 2: the distance between the X axis and the inner surface of electrode 15 tapers from the center of electrode 15 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. 2: the distance between the X axis and the outer surface of electrode 14 tapers from the center of electrode 14 towards the incident and exit holes).
Regarding claim 4, Kholine in view of Watson as applied to claim 1 discloses the electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer according to claim 1, including the voltage applied to one or a plurality of the inner electrodes except for the inner electrodes at both ends (Watson, column 6, lines 55-66; see claim 1 supra).
Kholine in view of Watson fails to disclose that the voltage is set to a voltage that is at least 10 to 50 times or more of the converted acceleration voltage obtained by converting the energy of electrons into an acceleration voltage.
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, Kholine teaches that “[t]he potential difference between the inner and outer electrodes 14, 15 determines the energy of charged particles brought to a focus at the detector 21 by the energy dispersive electric field created in space 18 between the inner and outer electrode surfaces IS, OS” (paragraph 0026). As such, Kholine identifies the voltage as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., adjusting the energy of focused charged particles. 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, Kholine in view of Watson as applied to claim 4 discloses the electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer according to claim 4.
Kholine in view of Watson fails to disclose that a voltage applied to one or more outer electrodes excluding the electrodes at both ends of the outer electrode is 10 times or less of the converted acceleration voltage.
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, Kholine teaches that “[t]he potential difference between the inner and outer electrodes 14, 15 determines the energy of charged particles brought to a focus at the detector 21 by the energy dispersive electric field created in space 18 between the inner and outer electrode surfaces IS, OS” (paragraph 0026). As such, Kholine identifies the voltage as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., adjusting the energy of focused charged particles. 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, Kholine 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 Kholine 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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kholine in view of Watson as respectively applied to claims 4 and 1 above, and further in view of Shchepunov et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,082,602 B2), hereinafter Shchepunov.
Regarding claim 6, Kholine in view of Watson as applied to claim 4 discloses the electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer according to claim 4.
Kholine 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, Kholine in view of Watson as applied to claim 1 discloses the electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer according to claim 1.
Kholine 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, Kholine in view of Watson as applied to claim 1 discloses the electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer according to claim 1.
Kholine 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.
Regarding claim 10, Kholine in view of Watson as applied to claim 1 discloses the electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer according to claim 1.
In addition, Kholine discloses that each of the rotation bodies has a rotation angle of 90° to 180° (paragraph 0047).
Kholine in view of Watson 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 Kholine in view of Watson 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 Kholine 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, Kholine in view of Watson as applied to claim 1 discloses the electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer according to claim 1.
Kholine 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 Kholine 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).
Kholine 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 Kholine 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 Kholine 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, Kholine 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 Kholine 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).
Kholine 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.
Kholine 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 Kholine 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).
Kholine 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 Kholine 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, Kholine 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, Kholine discloses a combination of multiple electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzers (paragraph 0048).
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 Kholine 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).
Kholine 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.
Kholine 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 Kholine 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).
Kholine 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 Kholine 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, Kholine 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 Kholine 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 Kholine in view of Watson as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Shchepunov, Tusche, and Krizek.
Regarding claim 15, Kholine in view of Watson as applied to claim 9 discloses the electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer according to claim 9.
Kholine 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 Kholine 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).
Kholine 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.
Kholine 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 Kholine 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).
Kholine 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 Kholine 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, Kholine in view of Watson as applied to claim 9 discloses the electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer according to claim 9.
Kholine 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 Kholine 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).
Kholine 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.
Kholine 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 Kholine 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).
Kholine 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 Kholine 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, Kholine 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, Kholine discloses a combination of multiple electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzers (paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 20, Kholine 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 Kholine 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, Kholine, teaches an electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer (FIG. 1) comprising:
one or a plurality of outer electrodes (FIG. 1, element 15) and an inner electrode (FIG. 1, element 14) being disposed along the shapes of two rotation bodies (FIG. 2, rotation bodies with radii
R
1
and
R
2
) formed concentrically (Merriam-Webster.com defines ‘concentric’ as ‘having a common axis’; FIG. 2 shows the rotation bodies having the X axis as a common axis) for a common rotation axis (FIG. 2, X axis);
an electron incident hole (FIG. 3, hole with radius
r
2
) and exit hole (FIG. 4, hole with radius
r
6
) being formed in the outer electrodes at both ends on the rotation axis (FIGs. 3, 4: the holes are formed from the X axis to the outer electrode 15);
a voltage applying means for applying a voltage for accelerating and decelerating electrons to the outer electrode and the inner electrode (paragraph 0026); 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. 2: the distance between the X axis and the inner surface of electrode 15 decreases from the center of electrode 15 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 (FIG. 2: the distance between the X axis and the outer surface of electrode 14 decreases from the center of electrode 14 towards the incident and exit holes), 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 (FIG. 2: the distance between the X axis and the outer surface of electrode 14 decreases from the center of electrode 14 towards the incident and exit holes), a rod shape extending toward the exit hole, or a shape that becomes larger in diameter at the end on the exit hole side;
wherein a central trajectory is at a predetermined incident angle with the rotation axis (paragraph 0036), an applied voltage which is applied to each electrode is adjusted (paragraph 0037) such that the central trajectory of electrons incident from the incident hole converges on the position of the exit hole (FIG. 2, point f) at a predetermined exit angle with the rotation axis (paragraph 0036).
However, Kholine fails to teach a mirror or any similar reflecting element. 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 6, upon which claim 14 depends.
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.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vestal (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0163473 A1), hereinafter Vestal, teaches an electrostatic deflection convergence-type energy analyzer comprising: one or a plurality of outer electrodes and a plurality of inner electrodes being disposed along the shapes of two rotation bodies formed concentrically for a common rotation axis.
Shima (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0067837 A1), hereinafter Shima, teaches applying a voltage that is calculated from a converted acceleration voltage obtained by converting the energy of electrons into an acceleration voltage with reference to the potential of the outer electrode.
Mitsuke (JP Patent No. 2003257361 A), hereinafter Mitsuke (English machine translation provided), teaches an imaging-type electron spectrometer characterized by providing an input lens having the incident hole on the lens axis.
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