DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections under 35 USC 112(a)/(b):
By amendment these issues have been resolved. However, by amendment there is now a new issue under 112(a) as discussed below.
Prior art rejections:
The remarks have been found unpersuasive. Specifically, the claimed “substantially straight segments are not tied to any structure (i.e. for instance to straight sidewalls joining the floor and the ceiling), therefore since any two imaginary lines could be drawn across the cross-section of a circular opening, this limitation is met. Again as discussed during the interview all holes are necessarily compound curves as a perfect circular opening is impossible due to limitations in fabrication processes.
However, in order to advance prosecution, a new interpretation is taken with respect to Schwartz et al. as discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 lacks written description for “wherein a lateral aperture of the plurality of lateral apertures defines a periphery in cross section parallel with the central axis that assumes a shape of a compound curve, the periphery comprising a floor and a ceiling defining respective radii of curvature, the floor and the ceiling being separated by a vertical dimension that is spanned by two substantially straight segments.”
Specifically, the breath of the claim covers only a single lateral aperture to have the claimed requirements. However, paragraph [0052] expressly recites “In the context of the present disclosure, a substantially symmetrical arrangement of the lateral apertures 205 about the central axis B is a functional consideration at least in part because the lateral apertures 205 are characterized by a different field permittivity than the body 220. In this way, an asymmetric arrangement can interfere with the operation of electromagnetic lenses used to form the beam of electrons 155, thereby introducing aberration, imaging artifacts, or decreased resolution in TEM imaging and microanalysis.” That is, the specification only envisions a symmetrical arrangement of the plurality of apertures, therefore only have one of the plurality of apertures to have the claimed configuration is not suggested by the instant specification to show the applicant had possession of the entire claim scope.
Claims 2-7 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on rejected claim 1.
Claim 9 recites commensurate limitations and fails to meet the written description requirement for the same reason as above.
Claims 10-14 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on rejected claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 9 are vague and indefinite for requiring “the plurality of lateral apertures…substantially symmetrically about the central axis, and wherein a lateral aperture of the plurality of lateral apertures defines a periphery in cross section parallel with the central axis that assumes a shape of a compound curve, the periphery comprising a floor and a ceiling defining respective radii of curvature, the floor and the ceiling being separated by a vertical dimension that is spanned by two substantially straight segments” because it is not clear how a single aperture can have this specific structure (i.e. the breath of the claims allow for the other structures to be different) and still be symmetrical about the central axis.
Claims 2-7 and 10-14 are vague and indefinite by virtue of their dependencies on rejected claims 1 and 9
Additionally, claims 3, 4 and 11 have similar “a lateral aperture of the plurality of lateral apertures” and is vague and indefinite for the same reasons as above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yanaka et al. (USPN 4,596,934).
Regarding claim 1, Yanaka et al. teach a lower pole piece (fig. 3, 17) for an electron microscope (figure 3), the pole piece comprising:
a body (body of 17), being substantially concentric with a central axis (concentric with central axis as seen in figure 3), wherein the body defines: an upper surface (top of 17), substantially normal to the central axis (perpendicular to central axis); a lower surface (bottom of 17), substantially normal to the central axis (bottom is also shown perpendicular to the central axis);
a central aperture (7) formed in the body from the upper surface to the lower surface (as seen in figure 3), the central aperture being substantially rotationally symmetrical about the central axis (7 is described as a “center bore” thus rotationally symmetric about center axis);
a lateral surface, inclined relative to the central axis (inclined surface of 17 at 60 degrees see col. 4, lines 66-67 through col. 5, lines 1-2) and tapering toward the upper surface (as seen in figure 3); and
a plurality of lateral apertures (passage 33 forms two apertures) formed in the body from the lateral surface to the central aperture (33 is formed in the lateral surface of 17),
wherein the plurality of lateral apertures is arrayed substantially symmetrically about the central axis (33 is on opposite sides of 17)
wherein a lateral aperture of the plurality of lateral apertures defines a periphery in cross section parallel with the central axis that assumes a shape of a compound curve (necessarily a compound curve, see discussion above), the periphery comprising a floor and a ceiling defining respective radii of curvature (lower portion of the aperture and upper portion of the aperture), the floor and the ceiling being separated by a vertical dimension that is spanned by two substantially straight segments (the segments are not tied to any structure, therefore drawing two parallel lines from the bottom of a cross-section of a circle to the top is sufficient to meet two substantially straight segments)
Regarding claim 5, Yanaka teaches the ceiling is characterized by a first radius of curvature from about 1 mm to about 10 mm; and the floor is characterized by a second radius of curvature from about 1 mm to about 10 mm (diameter of 1.5 mm see col. 5, lines 7-10, thus curvature of floor and ceiling in the claimed range).
Regarding claim 6, Yanaka teaches wherein the first radius of curvature is from about 1 mm to about 3 mm and wherein the second radius of curvature is from about 1 mm to about 5 mm (diameter of 1.5 mm see col. 5, lines 7-10, thus curvature of floor and ceiling in the claimed range).
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 1-4, 9-10 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz et al. (US pgPub 2025/0062099).
Regarding claim 1, Schwartz teaches a pole piece (fig. 5, 520) for an electron microscope (figure 5, “TEM”), the pole piece comprising:
a body (body of 520), being substantially concentric with a central axis (concentric with central axis 560 as seen in figure 5), wherein the body defines: an upper surface (top of 520), substantially normal to the central axis (perpendicular to central axis 560); a lower surface (bottom of 520), substantially normal to the central axis (bottom is also shown perpendicular to the central axis);
a central aperture (aperture in 520) formed in the body from the upper surface to the lower surface (as seen in figure 5), the central aperture being substantially rotationally symmetrical about the central axis (as seen in figure 5);
a lateral surface, inclined relative to the central axis (inclined portion of 520) and tapering toward the upper surface (as seen in figure 5)
a plurality of lateral apertures formed in the body from the lateral surface to the central aperture (Schwartz teaches below the apex of the lower pole-piece an aperture may be configured to enable the placement of the laser device in the back focal plane of the objective lens ([0162]) and that multiple ports for insertion of the laser device or for coupling the laser device of in-going or out-going beams. That is, Schwartz suggests an aperture below the apex of the lower pole (i.e. lateral surface) and multiple ports for insertion of the laser device ([0166]). ).
Schwartz fails to expressly teach wherein the plurality of lateral apertures is arrayed substantially symmetrically about the central axis.
However, since the resonator has two mirrors on opposite sides of optical axis 560, the resonator is symmetric. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the ports (i.e. lateral apertures) of the lower pole-piece to be symmetrically arranged because it would allow for inserting the laser device from either side of the pole providing flexibility in assembly. Moreover, symmetric ports would allow access to each side of the resonator therefore allowing the resonator to be more easily accessed for alignment or maintenance.
Schwartz further fails to disclose wherein a lateral aperture of the plurality of lateral apertures defines a periphery in cross section parallel with the central axis that assumes a shape of a compound curve (necessarily a compound curve, see discussion above), the periphery comprising a floor and a ceiling defining respective radii of curvature (lower portion of the aperture and upper portion of the aperture), the floor and the ceiling being separated by a vertical dimension that is spanned by two substantially straight segments (the segments are not tied to any structure, therefore drawing two parallel lines from the bottom of a cross-section of a circle to the top is sufficient to meet two substantially straight segments).
However, figure 5a of Schwartz shows a orthogonal arrangement of the cavity and 5B shows a tilted arrangement of the cavity. The laser is taught to be routed to the cavity via a laser port 113 ([0106]). In the same way, in the arrangement where the laser is routed to an aperture in the lower polepiece, ([0162]) it is necessary to align the laser with the optical cavity. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form an aperture in Schwartz having a floor and ceiling with two straight sidewalls so that the laser may be aligned with the optical cavity when moving from the optical cavity position in the orthogonal state to the tilted state or vice versa. That is, an slot like aperture would be ideal to keep the alignment between the laser with the cavity irrespective of whether the optical cavity is in a tilted or in a orthogonal state. Further it would have been obvious to have a radius of curvature for each of the floor and ceiling because the laser is round (not focal spot size suggests a diameter of the laser [0120]) thus allowing a larger degree of motion of the laser beam when changing the tilt. Lastly, as discussed above, since a perfectly rounded surface is impossible due to limitations such a rounded floor and ceiling would necessarily provide a compound curve.
Regarding claim 2, Schwartz teaches wherein the plurality of lateral apertures respectively intersect the central aperture at a vertical distance relative to the upper surface ([0162] and [0166] teaches an aperture or ports below the apex of the lower pole thus at a vertical distance relative to the upper surface of the pole).
While Schwartz fails to disclose the actual distance, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the range from about 5 mm to about 20 mm because if the resonator is sized slightly smaller than 5 mm to about 20 mm, this size would allow for insertion of the laser device inside of the aperture, therefore allowing for easy insertion as discussed in paragraph [0162].
Regarding claim 3, Schwartz teaches wherein a lateral aperture of the plurality of lateral apertures is characterized by the vertical dimension, between the upper surface and the lower surface, aligned with the central axis (aperture see paragraph [0162] modified to have a vertical dimension) from about 5 mm to about 15 mm (5 to 15 mm vertical dimension may extend any length, arbitrarily defining the length to be 5-15 mm).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Schwartz teaches at paragraph [0175] the tilt of the cavity to be 65 degrees (i.e. 25 degrees relative to a lateral plane normal to the central axis). However, fails to suggest wherein a lateral aperture of the plurality of lateral apertures tapers toward the central aperture at an angle from about 10 degrees to about 45 degrees relative to a lateral reference plane normal to the central axis.
However, since it would be obvious to elongate the aperture, it would further be obvious to taper it to 25 degrees because it would accommodate the access of the laser to the optical cavity both in the orthogonal arrangement seen in figure 5A and the tilted arrangement of figure 5B.
Regarding claim 9, Schwartz teaches a microscope system (figs. 1 and 5), comprising:
a pole piece including a body, the body being substantially rotationally symmetrical about a central axis, wherein the body defines: an upper surface, substantially normal to the central axis; a lower surface, substantially normal to the central axis; a central aperture formed in the body from the upper surface to the lower surface, the central aperture being substantially rotationally symmetrical about the central axis; a lateral surface, inclined relative to the central axis and tapering toward the upper surface; and a plurality of lateral apertures formed in the body from the lateral surface to the central aperture (see discussion in claim 1 above);
an electron source (fig. 1, 102) configured to generate a beam of electrons substantially aligned with the central axis (as seen in figure 1); a sample holder (106) disposed in the microscope system at a first position on the central axis between the electron source and the pole piece (106 between 120 and lower pole piece see figure 5); and one or more electromagnetic lenses (103a) configured to shape the beam of electrons such that the beam of electrons diverges away from the central axis at a second position on the central axis between the electron source and the sample holder ([0127] teaches the electron beams may be optically controlled for deflection before and after the specimen plane, thus upstream of the sample holder 106 the electrons may diverge away from the central axis at a second position on the central axis between the electron source 102 and the sample holder 106).
Schwartz fails to expressly teach wherein the plurality of lateral apertures is arrayed substantially symmetrically about the central axis.
However, since the resonator has two mirrors on opposite sides of optical axis 560, the resonator is symmetric. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the ports (i.e. lateral apertures) of the lower pole-piece to be symmetrically arranged because it would allow for inserting the laser device from either side of the pole providing flexibility in assembly. Moreover, symmetric ports would allow access to each side of the resonator therefore allowing the resonator to be more easily accessed for alignment or maintenance.
The amended limitations are obvious as discussed herein above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Schwartz et al. teaches wherein the plurality of lateral apertures respectively intersect the central aperture between the upper surface and the lower surface at a vertical distance, corresponding to a first diffraction plane of the beam of electrons (paragraph [0161] teaches a back focal plane positioned at least a certain distance below the apex of the lower pole piece having an aperture configured to enable placement of the laser device in the back focal plane. This suggests the aperture intersects with the central axis at the back focal plane (i.e. diffraction plane. Note: the instant specification teaches the back focal plane and the first diffraction plane coincide)).
While Schwartz does not specifically teach the distance to be relative to the upper surface from about 5 mm to about 20 mm, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 12-13, Schwartz et al. fails to disclose the dimensions of the aperture. However, it would have been obvious to provide the claimed diameters because it would allow for easy insertion of the laser device of Schwartz.
However Yanaka teaches a lateral aperture of the plurality of lateral apertures defines a floor and a ceiling (33 has a diameter (col. 5, lines 6-10), thus defining the bottom of 33 to be floor and top to be ceiling); a cross section of the lateral aperture parallel with the central axis defines a compound curve connecting the floor and the ceiling (inherent to a diameter);
the ceiling is characterized by a first radius of curvature from about 1 mm to about 10 mm; and the floor is characterized by a second radius of curvature from about 1 mm to about 10 mm (diameter of 1.5 mm see col. 5, lines 7-10, thus curvature of floor and ceiling in the claimed range) and wherein the first radius of curvature is from about 1 mm to about 3 mm and wherein the second radius of curvature is from about 1 mm to about 5 mm (diameter of 1.5 mm see col. 5, lines 7-10, thus curvature of floor and ceiling in the claimed range).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz et al. in view of Yanaka and as evidenced by Turnbaugh et al. (Turnbaugh et al., “High-power near-concentric Fabry-Perot cavity for phase contrast electron microscopy” Rev. Sci. Instrum. 2021).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Schwartz teaches wherein the central aperture comprises a plurality of sections, wherein a first section of the plurality of sections is characterized by a diameter, wherein a second section of the plurality of sections is characterized by a diameter (figure 5a/5b dividing the central aperture into two sections, one for receiving the laser cavity as discussed above).
Schwartz fails to disclose the first section of the plurality of sections is characterized by a diameter from about 1 mm to about 10 mm.
Yanaka teaches the first section of the plurality of sections is characterized by a diameter from about 1 mm to about 10 mm (col. 5, lies 35-37 teaches a diameter of .7 mm which is about 1 mm).
Yanaka modifies Schwartz by suggesting an appropriate diameter of the top of the lower pole.
Since both inventions are directed towards TEM with lower polepieces, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a diameter as suggested by Yanaka because it would resolve the problem of what diameter bore the entrance of the lower pole piece should have for the intended purposed of TEM. Moreover a smaller entrance hole reduces spherical aberration (col. 2, lines 60-64)
The combined device further fails to disclose second section of the plurality of sections is characterized by a diameter from about 5 mm to about 50 mm, and wherein the second section is wider than the first section.
However, Schwartz suggests the optical cavity (i.e. laser device) to be positioned in the lower pole piece as discussed above via an aperture. Turnbaugh et al. is evidence that an optical cavity must be less than 50 mm long and less than 25 mm in diameter to fit inside the TEM ( page 92, right column, first paragraph under “cavity mechanics). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a wider lower cavity in the device of Schwartz so as to accommodate the optical cavity therein, while keeping the size requirements for the entrance into the lower polepiece as suggested by Yanaka for reducing the spherical aberrations.
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 MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881