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 .
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 1-2, 9-10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mellot (US 20140117214 A1) in view of Wang, et. al. (WO 2018145983 A1), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 1, Mellot teaches a detector ([0003], detector 100, [0029], Fig. 1) for a charged particle apparatus (field of use) comprising:
a sensing element including a diode (photodiode 101, [0029], Fig. 1); and
a circuit configured to detect an electron event caused by light impacting the sensing element (circuit shown in Fig. 1 detects and outputs a value representative of a luminosity level measured by the detector from discharging a photodiode, [0029], [0005]).
wherein the circuit comprises a voltage monitoring device (comparator 105, Fig. 1) and a reset device (reset switch 103, Fig. 1),
wherein the reset device includes a switch (Fig. 1 shows reset switch 103 connecting diode 101 to predetermined voltage VRT, [0031])and is configured to regularly reset the diode by setting a voltage across the diode to a predetermined value ([0030], [0031], Fig. 2), and
wherein the voltage monitoring device includes a discriminator (105 compares VPX to VREF, [0034]-[0036], Figs. 1 and 2) and is connected to the diode to monitor a voltage across the diode in between resets (Fig. 1, [0029] teaches cathode K of diode 101 is connected to input E1 of comparator 105 such that the voltage across the photodiode is compared to VREF, [0036]).
Mellot does not teach a charged particle apparatus or a circuit configured to detect an electron event caused by an electron impacting the sensing element.
Wang teaches a charged particle apparatus ([0033] electron beam inspection system 100) and a circuit configured to detect an electron event caused by an electron impacting the sensing element (sensing elements 244/306 (can be a PIN diode, [0043]) has signal processing circuitry to detect electrons, [005], [0044]).
Wang modifies Mellot by suggesting an electron microscope having a diode detector, and by suggesting that the detector can have a circuit configured to detect an electron event caused by an electron impacting the sensing element.
Since Wang is directed to a detector, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Wang because such a detector and circuit in an electron beam microscope can be used to detect backscattered electrons, (Wang, [005], [0044]). Furthermore, the effect of electrons impacting a diode is the same as that of photons, namely the generation of electron-hole pairs and a resulting current ([0043], [0044]).
Regarding claim 2, Mellot teaches wherein the reset device is configured to set a voltage across the diode such that the diode is reverse biased ([0005], [0029], [0031], Fig. 1 shows that the anode of the photodiode is connected to ground (lower potential) while the cathode of the photodiode is connected to VRT (higher potential)).
Regarding claim 9, Mellot teaches wherein the switch connects the diode to a voltage of a predetermined value when closed to reset the diode (Fig. 1 shows reset switch 103 connecting diode 101 to predetermined voltage VRT, [0031]).
Regarding claim 10, Mellot teaches wherein the discriminator is configured to determine when a voltage change of the voltage across the diode exceeds a predetermined value (105 compares VPX to VREF, [0034]-[0036], Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 13, Mellot teaches wherein the capacitance of the diode is below a predetermined value ([0005] junction capacitance of the diode is inherently below its finite capacitance).
Regarding claim 14, Mellot teaches the detector of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Although Mellot teaches a sensing element (photodiode 101, [0029], Fig. 1) and a corresponding circuit configured to detect an electron event caused by an electron impacting the corresponding sensing element (circuit shown in Fig. 1 detects and outputs value representative of a luminosity level measured by the detector from discharging the photodiode, [0029], [0005]), the sensing element including a diode (photodiode 101, [0029], Fig. 1), and the circuit comprising a corresponding voltage monitoring device (comparator 105, Fig. 1) and a corresponding reset device (reset switch 103, Fig. 1), wherein the reset device is configured to regularly reset the corresponding diode by setting a voltage across the corresponding diode to a predetermined value ([0030], [0031], Fig. 2), and the voltage monitoring device is connected to the corresponding diode to monitor a voltage across the diode in between resets (Fig. 1, [0029] teaches cathode K of diode 101 is connected to input E1 of comparator 105 such that the voltage across the photodiode is compared to VREF, [0036]), Mellot does not teach “a plurality of sensing elements and corresponding circuits….”.
Wang teaches a plurality of sensing elements and corresponding circuits ([0043], [0044], [0052]).
Wang modifies Mellot by suggesting a plurality of PIN diodes and corresponding circuits.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Wang because a plurality of sensors and circuits can be used to generate an intensity gradient to perform processing, (Wang, [0053])
Regarding claim 15, Mellot teaches wherein the circuit is configured to count electron events caused by light impacting the sensing element (counter 109 (CP), Fig. 1, [0032]).
Mellot does not teach an electron impacting the sensing element.
Wang teaches an electron impacting the sensing element ([005]).
Wang modifies Mellot by suggesting an electron impacting the diode instead of light.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Han because a detector that detects electrons impacting the sensing element can be used to detect and count backscattered electrons in an electron microscope, (Han, Abstract, [005]). Furthermore, the effect of electrons impacting a diode is the same as that of photons, namely the generation of electron-hole pairs and a resulting current ([0043], [0044]).
Claims 3-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mellot (US 20140117214 A1) in view of Wang (WO 2018145983 A1), further in view of Andreou, et. al. (US 20100245809 A1), hereinafter Andreou.
Regarding claim 3, Mellot teaches wherein the diode is reverse biased during reset ([0005], [0029], [0031], Fig. 1 shows that the anode of the photodiode is connected to ground (lower potential) while the cathode of the photodiode is connected to VRT (higher potential)).
Mellot in view of Wang does not explicitly teach such that the diode is operated in a no-gain mode.
Andreou teaches the diode is operated in a no-gain mode ([0064] teaches operation in linear mode where the voltage applied to the anode of the photodiode is can be up to a few volts. The linear mode of Andreou is interpreted to be a no-gain mode because this is the lowest possible amplifier setting).
Andreou modifies the combination by suggesting the diode is operated in a lowest amplifier setting (linear mode).
Since the inventions are directed to diodes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Andreou because linear mode is ideal for high intensity illumination and linear avalanche mode is ideal for less intense illumination (Andreou, [0064]).
Regarding claim 4, Mellot teaches wherein the diode is reverse biased during reset ([0005], [0029], [0031], Fig. 1 shows that the anode of the photodiode is connected to ground (lower potential) while the cathode of the photodiode is connected to VRT (higher potential)).
Mellot in view of Wang does not explicitly teach such that the diode is operated in a linear region.
Andreou teaches the diode is operated in a linear region ([0064], linear mode or linear avalanche mode).
Andreou modifies the combination by suggesting the diode can be operated in a linear mode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Andreou because linear mode is ideal for high intensity illumination and linear avalanche mode is ideal for less intense illumination (Andreou, [0064]).
Regarding claim 5, Mellot teaches wherein the diode is reverse biased during reset ([0005], [0029], [0031], Fig. 1 shows that the anode of the photodiode is connected to ground (lower potential) while the cathode of the photodiode is connected to VRT (higher potential)).
Mellot in view of Wang does not explicitly teach such that the diode is operated in a Geiger mode.
Andreou teaches the diode is operated in Geiger mode ([0064] teaches SPAD (single-photon avalanche diode) mode, which is Geiger mode)
Andreou modifies the combination by suggesting the diode is operated in Geiger mode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Andreou because SPAD mode is ideal for extremely low light level illumination on the order of one or a few photons per microsecond (Andreou, [0064]).
Regarding claim 12, Mellot in view of Wang does not explicitly teach wherein the diode is a PIN diode or an avalanche diode.
Andreou teaches wherein the diode is a PIN diode or an avalanche diode (Abstract teaches an avalanche photodiode).
Andreou modifies the combination by suggesting that diode is an avalanche diode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Andreou because avalanche photodiodes are capable of converting single photons to a measurable electrical signal (Andreou, [0004]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mellot (US 20140117214 A1) in view of Wang (WO 2018145983 A1), further in view of Tashiro (US 20180338099 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Mellot in view of Wang does not teach wherein the reset device is configured to set the voltage across the diode to zero.
Tashiro teaches wherein the reset device is configured to set the voltage across the diode to zero ([0036]-[0037] voltage controlling unit 111 functions as a reset switch resetting the voltage across the diode to 0 V, Fig. 1).
Tashiro modifies the combination by suggesting that the reset device is configured to set the voltage across the diode to zero.
Since Tashiro is directed to a diode, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Tashiro because resetting the voltage across the diode during reset drains the accumulated charge and sets the diode into a forwardly biased state, (Tashiro, [0037]).
Claims 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mellot (US 20140117214 A1) in view of Wang (WO 2018145983 A1), further in view of Schrey, et. al. (US 20120268727 A1), hereinafter Schrey.
Regarding claim 7, Mellot in view of Wang does not explicitly teach wherein the reset device is configured to reset the diode at a frequency of at least 1 MHz.
Schrey teaches wherein the reset device is configured to reset the diode at a frequency of at least 1 MHz (Fig. 3a and [0046] teaches a cycle of 20 nanoseconds, with two reset signals 334 within this timeframe (~ every 10 nanoseconds), which corresponds to a reset frequency of (1/(10 ns)) = 100 MHz).
Schrey modifies the combination by suggesting resetting the diode at a frequency in the claimed range. Schrey renders the claimed invention obvious because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 7, Mellot in view of Wang does not explicitly teach wherein the reset device is configured to reset the diode at a frequency of at least 10 MHz.
Schrey teaches wherein the reset device is configured to reset the diode at a frequency of at least 10 MHz (Fig. 3a and [0046] teaches a cycle of 20 nanoseconds, with two reset signals 334 within this timeframe (~ every 10 nanoseconds), which corresponds to a reset frequency of (1/(10 ns)) = 100 MHz).
Schrey modifies the combination by suggesting resetting the diode at a frequency in the claimed range. Schrey renders the claimed invention obvious because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claims 8, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mellot (US 20140117214 A1) in view of Wang (WO 2018145983 A1), further in view of Eldesouki, et. al. (US 20110266420 A1), hereinafter Eldesouki.
Regarding claims 8, 23, and 24, although Mellot teaches wherein the reset device is configured to reset the diode in a reset period that is smaller than the time period in between resets (See Fig. 2 which shows that RST signals 201 are much shorter than the time periods Td in between), Mellot in view of Wang does not explicitly teach wherein the reset device is configured to reset the diode in a reset period that is at most 0.1% of the time period in between resets.
However, Eldesouki suggests optimizing the reset period such that the reset device is configured to reset the diode in a reset period that is at most 0.1% of the time period in between resets. In particular, Eldesouki teaches reducing a dead time of the circuit ([0006] teaches the passive quench control circuit, the active quench control circuit and the reset circuit may operate in concert to reduce a dead time of the circuit).
Optimizing the reset period 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, Eldesouki teaches the reset period as a variable which achieves a recognized result (delay can result in inaccuracy in photon count and limit an upper photon count rate, [0004]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the reset period to meet the claimed range in order to achieve accuracy and high-speed processing requirements since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claims 11 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mellot (US 20140117214 A1) in view of Wang (WO 2018145983 A1), further in view of Stillwell (US 2791689 A).
Regarding claims 11 and 25, Mellot in view of Wang does not explicitly teach wherein the voltage monitoring device has an impedance such that a voltage change across the diode caused by the voltage monitoring device itself in between resets is less than 50%, or 20% of the predetermined value.
Stillwell suggests optimizing the impedance such that a voltage change across the diode caused by the voltage monitoring device itself in between resets is less than 20% of the predetermined value (Col. 1, lines 59-64).
Optimizing the reset period 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, Stillwell teaches the impedance of the comparator as a variable which achieves a recognized result (Stillwell teaches that the impedance is directly related to voltage drop and measurement accuracy, as taught in Col. 1, lines 59-64). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the comparator impedance to meet the claimed range in order to achieve accurate measurement since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
The prior claim interpretations under 35 USC 112(f) are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments adding sufficient and definite structure to the limitations at issue.
The indefiniteness rejection of record are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments.
Applicant argues that Mellot fails to teach that the reset device is “configured to regularly reset the diode by setting a voltage across the diode to a predetermined value.” In particular, applicant argues that the resetting function of Mellot is not “regular” since it is not time dependent, but rather is dependent upon light intensity. This is not persuasive. During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The meaning given to a claim term using the broadest reasonable interpretation must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification.
In the instant case, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “regularly” does not limit the adverb to describing time, but also admits other customary meanings. These other customary meanings include, “according to plan.” 1 If nothing else, resetting the diode based upon light intensity is “regularly” resetting the diode, because it is according to a plan of resetting with respect to threshold intensities.
Further, the limitation at issue is not a method step of resetting the diode, but rather a configuration. As such, the question at hand is not whether the resetting device actually resets the diode in a regular fashion, but rather whether it is configured to do so. Under the conditions of constant intensity at the detector, the diode would not only regularly reset in response to the light intensity, but would also regularly reset in a timewise fashion due to constant light intensity. Accordingly, even if the applicant’s overly narrow interpretation of the term “regularly” were to be accepted, the prior art of record would still teach the “configured” limitation.
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 WYATT A STOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0700-1600 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.
WYATT STOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
1 Collins Dictionary. Regularly. Collins English Dictionary, https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/regularly.
Prosecution Insights