DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 7/23/25 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. The amendment necessitates the new ground(s) of rejection presented due to the added language in claim 1.
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
PNG
media_image1.png
158
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 3, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bayly (US 5034605 A).
Regarding claim 1, Bayly teaches an efficient and stable secondary ion extraction apparatus, wherein the efficient and stable secondary ion extraction apparatus comprising:
a sample target (see fig 1: 2),
a primary ion optical unit (see 19),
a secondary ion extraction unit (see e.g. 12), an electron gun (see 21), an ion lens (e.g. 3, 29, 6-9) and an ion deflection unit (e.g. 13); wherein
the primary ion optical unit is used for generating primary ions (see col 8, lines 5-7), and the primary ions being sputtered to the sample target to generate secondary ions (see e.g. col 3, lines 54-58);
the secondary ion extraction unit comprising a first extraction electrode (e.g. 4) and a second extraction electrode (e.g. 10) successively arranged relative to the sample target (see fig 1), wherein the first extraction electrode is parallel to the sample target (see fig 1) and applies a low voltage (V3) to form a uniform weak electric field between the first extraction electrode and the sample target (see fig 1, V1-V3, which is 5-50% of V1-V2), and wherein the second extraction electrode applies a
the electron gun is used for neutralizing charges accumulated on the surface of a sample (see col 5, lines 61-68);
the ion lens is used for focusing the secondary ions from the secondary ion extraction unit (see fig 1, e.g. col 7, lines 58-60); and
the ion deflection unit is used for correcting an angle of and changing a direction of the focused secondary ions to enter a follow-up analysis instrument (see fig 1, natural result of focusing the beam onto the detector, 18).
Bayly may fail to explicitly disclose the second electrode voltages being a high voltage. However, it is noted that Bayly also teaches that the voltages can be reversed for collecting negative secondary ions (see Bayly, col 8, lines 34-45). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust the relative voltages, including a configuration where the second electrode has a higher voltage than the first electrode, as a routine skill in the art to optimize for particles, desired charges, and/or as a routine skill in the art in defining the ground voltage.
Regarding claim 1, Bayly teaches an efficient and stable secondary ion extraction apparatus, wherein the efficient and stable secondary ion extraction apparatus comprising:
a sample target (see fig 1: 2),
a primary ion optical unit (see 19),
a secondary ion extraction unit (see e.g. 12), an electron gun (see 21), an ion lens (e.g. 3, 29, 6-9) and an ion deflection unit (e.g. 13); wherein
the primary ion optical unit is used for generating primary ions (see col 8, lines 5-7), and the primary ions being sputtered to the sample target to generate secondary ions (see e.g. col 3, lines 54-58);
the secondary ion extraction unit comprising a first extraction electrode (e.g. 10,15) and a second extraction electrode (e.g. 3,4) successively arranged relative to the sample target (see fig 1), wherein the first extraction electrode is parallel to the sample target (see center part of 10) and applies a low voltage (V2, e.g. ground, see fig 1) to form a uniform weak electric field between the first extraction electrode and the sample target (see e.g. between 10 and 15; alternately reading as the effectively uniform weak field in the 5mm gap between 2 and 4), and wherein the second extraction electrode applies a high voltage (V3, higher voltage than V2, since (V1-V3)/(V1-V2) is 5-50%) to form an immersion lens with a surface of the sample to provide a voltage difference for secondary ion extraction;
the electron gun is used for neutralizing charges accumulated on the surface of a sample (see col 5, lines 61-68);
the ion lens is used for focusing the secondary ions from the secondary ion extraction unit (see fig 1, e.g. col 7, lines 58-60); and
the ion deflection unit is used for correcting an angle of and changing a direction of the focused secondary ions to enter a follow-up analysis instrument (see fig 1, natural result of focusing the beam onto the detector, 18).
Bayly may fail to explicitly disclose the first extraction electrode is parallel to the sample target.
However, given the parallel flat center portion of the first extraction electrode (see e.g. 10), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to form the electrode from multiple parts including a separate flat center portion and curved outer portions, for example to simplify of enable cheaper manufacturing. It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(V); Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding claim 3, Bayly teaches a voltage difference between the first extraction electrode and the sample target (see Bayly, fig 1, V3-V1) is smaller than 10% of a voltage of the sample target to form the uniform electric field between the first extraction electrode and the sample target (V2-V1; see 5-50%, col 6, line 44), and a hole for the secondary ions to pass through is formed in the middle of the first extraction electrode (see fig 1); and the secondary electrode applies high voltage (relatively higher voltage, see col 6, lines 35-41), and an immersion lens is formed by the secondary electrode and the surface of the sample to provide voltage difference for secondary ion extraction (see fig 1, natural result of applied voltages and configuration).
Regarding claim 9, Bayly teaches the voltage of the sample target provides energy voltage for the secondary ions (natural result of sputtering), the difference between the voltage of the first extraction electrode and that of the sample target is smaller than 10% of the voltage of the sample target (see Bayly, col 6, lines 41-44, 19-22), and the voltage of the second extraction electrode is determined according to distances among the sample target, the first extraction electrode and the second extraction electrode (required for intended operation of preparing desired field strength, see col 6, lines 45-49).
Regarding claim 10, Bayly teaches the secondary ion extraction apparatus is in a vacuum environment (see Bayly, col 8, lines 51-53).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bayly, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schultz et al. (US 5087815 A) [hereinafter Schultz].
Regarding claim 2, Bayly fails to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. However, the use of gold overlayers for SIMS was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Schultz teaches overlayers to provide high pass filtering of sputtered particles (see Schultz, col 14, lines 42-52), wherein the sample is adhered to the sample target, and the surface layer of the sample target is plated with gold (see col 14, lines 52-53). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Schultz in the system of the prior art to obtain the well known use of high pass filtering of sputtered particles, as taught by Schultz.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bayly, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Long et al. (CN 103531432 A) [hereinafter Long I] and Long et al. (CN 105914126 A) [hereinafter Long II].
Regarding claim 4, Bayly teaches the primary ions are sputtered to the sample on the sample target to generate secondary ions (see Bayly, abstract, fig 1). Bayly may fail to explicitly disclose the structure of the limitation as claimed. However, Long I teaches a known effective ion optical unit that enables the ability to select and filter out non-target ions (see Long, translation, p5, para 3), comprising an ion source (Long, e.g. fig 1: 2), a lens (e.g. 12), a deflection plate (e.g. 5) and pores (see 7) which are arranged successively; and the ion source generates primary ions (see fig 1), the primary ions are positive ions or negative ions, and focusing of which is realized by passing through the lens, the deflection plate and the pores successively (see fig 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Long in the system of the prior art to enable the ability to provide an ion beam while also enabling filtering out of undesirable ion species, as taught by Long I. However, the pore taught by Long I may not be a micropore configuration. However, the use of micropore configurations was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Long II teaches using a micropore configuration to precisely control the beam size (see Long II, translation, p5, middle of page). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to replace or add a micropore configuration to the aperture system of the combined prior art, as a routine skill in the art to obtain a desired output, i.e. precisely controlling beam size.
Regarding claim 5, the combined teaching of Bayly, Long I, and Long II teaches one surface of the first extraction electrode is a flat plate (see Bayly, fig 1: 4) while the other surface is an annular protrusion (see fig 1); and the flat plate surface corresponds to the sample target (see fig 1), an oblique planes formed by the annular protrusion are parallel to the top surfaces of the electron gun and the ion source (see fig 1), ducts (e.g. 30, 31) are formed in the annular protrusion, and electrons emitted by the electron gun and the primary ions generated by the ion source reach the sample on the sample target through the ducts (see fig 1).
Claim(s) 6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bayly, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lanio et al. (US 20140175277 A1) [hereinafter Lanio].
Regarding claim 6, Bayly may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. However, Lanio teaches a system to effectively transfer secondary ions to the detector while minimizing issues like aberrations (see Lanio, [0066]), said system comprising a first double-end bipolar deflection plate (e.g. Lanio, fig 6: 903) and a second double-end bipolar deflection plate (e.g. 902), the first double-end bipolar deflection plate and the second double-end bipolar deflection plate have the same structure (obvious to utilize same structure for deflectors), and both are two sets of deflection plates in symmetric arrangement (see fig 6), and voltage applied by each set of deflection plates is double-end bipolar voltage (required for deflection); the ion lens (see 301) is arranged between the first double-end bipolar deflection plate and the second double-end bipolar deflection plate (see fig 6); and wherein the first double-end bipolar deflection plate is configured to perform angle correction on the secondary ions extracted by the secondary ion extraction unit (see fig 6), the ion lens is positioned to focus the secondary ions from the first double-end bipolar deflection plate (see fig 6, [0030]), and the second double-end bipolar deflection plate is positioned to change the direction of the secondary ions from the ion lens to guide the secondary ions into a follow-up analysis instrument (see fig 6: 220). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Lanio in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to better control the system, while also minimizing aberrations, as taught by Lanio.
Regarding claim 8, the combined teaching of Bayly and Lanio teaches wherein the central axes of the sample target, the first extraction electrode, the second extraction electrode, the first double-end bipolar deflection plate, the second double-end bipolar deflection plate and the ion lens are superposed (see Lanio, fig 6, all in the plane of the page).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bayly, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Long et al. (CN103560070A) [hereinafter Long III].
Regarding claim 7, Bayly fails to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. However, the use of compound lenses was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Long III teaches an ion lens system that enables the ability to easily continuously adjust ion beam spot diameter and perform ion filtering (see Long III, abstract), said system comprising the ion lens is a single lens (see fig 2a), and it comprises three electrodes and two isolating parts (see translation, p8, last para); the electrodes and the isolating parts are successively superposed together (see fig 2a), the potentials of the electrodes at two ends are the same (see p8, last para), the potential of the electrode in the middle is different (see same), and focusing of the secondary ions is realized by changing the voltage of the electrodes at the two ends and the voltage of the electrode in the middle (see same). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Long III in the system of the prior art, in order to obtain the required ability to focus ions while also enabling the ability to easily continuously adjust ion beam spot diameter and perform ion filtering, as taught by Long III.
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 extension fee 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 James Choi whose telephone number is (571) 272 – 2689. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 am – 5:30 pm M-T, and every other Friday.
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 on (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.
/JAMES CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2881