DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments are not persuasive because Franco teaches each and every limitation of amended claim 1 and new claim 19, as detailed below in the rejections under 35 USC 102.
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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-13, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Franco, et. al. (US 20180350558 A1), hereinafter Franco.
Regarding claim 1, Franco teaches a method of preparing a sample for transmission electron microscopy (TEM) analysis ([0002], the method comprising:
cleaning the sample to remove a redeposition layer ([0058] mechanical grinding/polishing to remove curtaining and other artifacts, [0020], [0042]-[0043]);
imaging the cleaned sample and identifying a location of a region of interest within the sample ([0044], [0046]); and
removing material from the sample, based on the identified location of the region of interest within the sample ([0045]-[0046]), the removing material comprising:
removing a lamella roof of the sample using an ion beam oriented perpendicular to a front face of the sample to expose a second face of the sample perpendicular to the front face ([0042] edge-on milling to remove uneven, non-planar layers, where the lamella roof is interpreted as described in [0086] of the PG Publication (US 20240297015 A1) of the instant application as a section of material angled with respect to the lamella. An uneven, non-planar layer is angled with respect to the lamella.), and
removing a second portion of the sample using an ion beam oriented perpendicular to the second face ([0042] face-on milling performed after edge-on milling, [0043]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 4, Franco teaches wherein removing the lamella roof of the sample comprises ion milling a portion of the front face of the sample all the way through the sample to expose the second face ([0043]-[0044], Figs. 1A, 1B, 1C).
Regarding claim 5, Franco teaches wherein removing the second portion of the sample comprises removing material from the second face of the sample ([0045]-[0046]).
Regarding claim 8, Franco teaches wherein removing material from the second face of the sample is based on the identified location of the region of interest within the sample, so that material is removed until a predefined thickness of material remains between a surface of the sample and the region of interest ([0052]-[0053]).
Regarding claim 9, Franco teaches further comprising repositioning the sample between removing the lamella roof of the sample and removing the second portion of the sample ([0043] and [0045]).
Regarding claim 10, Franco teaches wherein cleaning the sample to remove a redeposition layer comprises removing the redeposition layer from a first face of the sample ([0042]-[0043]), wherein imaging the cleaned sample comprises using a charged particle beam to provide an image of the first face of the sample ([0044]).
Regarding claim 11, Franco teaches wherein the charged particle beam is an electron beam or an ion beam (FIB milling, focused ion beam, [0043]-[0046]).
Regarding claim 12, Franco teaches wherein the sample is a lamella, and wherein the method further comprises separating the lamella from a bulk substrate ([0042]).
Regarding claim 13, Franco teaches wherein separating the lamella from the bulk substrate comprises ion beam milling ([0042]).
Regarding claim 15, Franco teaches wherein identifying a location of a region of interest within the sample comprises performing image processing techniques to identify an interface between a substrate layer and a structure layer of the sample ([0068]).
Regarding claim 17, Franco teaches an apparatus for preparing a sample for transmission electron microscopy (TEM) analysis ([0041]), the apparatus comprising:
an ion beam system including an ion beam source ([0078]), optics for focusing an ion beam along an axis and onto a substrate ([0076], [0089]), and a micromanipulator for manipulating the sample (movable X-Y-Z stage 224, [0076]); and
a computing device including a processor and a computer-readable memory storing computer software comprising instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to carry out the method ([0083] system controller 219) of:
cleaning the sample to remove a redeposition layer ([0058] mechanical grinding/polishing to remove curtaining and other artifacts, [0020], [0042]-[0043]);
imaging the cleaned sample and identifying a location of a region of interest within the sample ([0044], [0046]); and
removing material from the sample, based on the identified location of the region of interest within the sample ([0045]-[0046]), the removing material comprising:
removing a lamella roof of the sample using an ion beam oriented perpendicular to a front face of the sample to expose a second face of the sample perpendicular to the front face ([0042] edge-on milling to remove uneven, non-planar layers, where the lamella roof is interpreted as described in [0086] of the PG Publication (US 20240297015 A1) of the instant application as a section of material angled with respect to the lamella. An uneven, non-planar layer is angled with respect to the lamella.), and
removing a second portion of the sample using an ion beam oriented perpendicular to the second face ([0042] face-on milling performed after edge-on milling, [0043]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 18, Franco teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium ([0083] system controller 219 with computer-readable memory 221 with programmed instructions) storing computing device-executable instructions for preparing a sample for transmission electron microscopy (TEM) analysis, the instructions when executed causing at least one computing device to control an apparatus including an ion beam system to:
clean the sample to remove a redeposition layer ([0058] mechanical grinding/polishing to remove curtaining and other artifacts, [0020], [0042]-[0043]);
image the cleaned sample and identify a location of a region of interest within the sample ([0044], [0046]); and
remove material from the sample, based on the identified location of the region of interest within the sample ([0045]-[0046]), the removing material comprising:
removing a lamella roof of the sample using an ion beam oriented perpendicular to a front face of the sample to expose a second face of the sample perpendicular to the front face ([0042] edge-on milling to remove uneven, non-planar layers, where the lamella roof is interpreted as described in [0086] of the PG Publication (US 20240297015 A1) of the instant application as a section of material angled with respect to the lamella. An uneven, non-planar layer is angled with respect to the lamella.), and
removing a second portion of the sample using an ion beam oriented perpendicular to the second face ([0042] face-on milling performed after edge-on milling, [0043]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 19, Franco teaches wherein the second surface is in a substrate portion of the sample ([0045]).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franco (US 20180350558 A1) in view of Arjavac, et. al. (US 20170062178 A1), hereinafter Arjavac.
Regarding claim 6, Franco teaches wherein removing material from the second face of the sample comprises: ion milling the second face ([0045]-[0046]); imaging the lamella ([0046]);
Franco does not teach applying a fiducial to the second face; and controlling the ion milling to correct for drift, based on an imaged location of the fiducial.
Arjavac teaches applying a fiducial to a face ([0012], [0028], Fig. 2G); and controlling the ion milling to correct for drift, based on an imaged location of the fiducial ([0012], [0029]-[0030]).
Arjavac modifies Franco by suggesting applying fiducials to a face of the sample and controlling ion milling to correct for drift based on an imaged location of the fiducial.
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 Arjavac because due to sample drift or other alignment problems that may occur during FIB deposition the location of the high-precision fiducial and the desired target location may not be the same. Therefore, using the fiducials in combinatioin with SEM imaging and CAD data allows for location correction so that lamella milling of the desired area can occur, (Arjavac, [0029]-[0030])
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franco (US 20180350558 A1) in view of Arjavac (US 20170062178 A1) and Moore, et. al. (US 20180166247 A1), hereinafter Moore.
Regarding claim 7, Franco wherein removing material from the second face of the sample comprises: ion milling the second face ([0045]-[0046]); imaging the lamella ([0046]). Franco also teaches a grid, ([0057])
Franco does not explicitly teach referencing a fiducial adjacent to the second face, where the fiducial is located on a sample grid carrying the sample and controlling the ion milling to correct for drift, based on an imaged location of the fiducial.
Moore teaches referencing a fiducial adjacent to the second face, where the fiducial is located on a sample grid carrying the sample ([0040], [0063]-[0064] teaches fiducial pattern 270 on TEM grid).
Arjavac teaches controlling the ion milling to correct for drift, based on an imaged location of the fiducial ([0012], [0029]-[0030]).
Moore modifies the combination by suggesting referencing a fiducial adjacent to the face of the sample on the TEM grid. Arjavac modifies the combination by suggesting controlling ion milling to correct for drift based on an imaged location of the fiducial.
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 Moore because a fiducial on the TEM grid allows for alignment of the PBL in reference to the sample and alignment of the sample with the charged particle beam, (Moore, [0064]). Furthermore, 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 Arjavac because due to sample drift or other alignment problems that may occur during FIB deposition the location of the high-precision fiducial and the desired target location may not be the same. Therefore, using the fiducials in combinatioin with SEM imaging and CAD data allows for location correction so that lamella milling of the desired area can occur, (Arjavac, [0029]-[0030])
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franco (US 20180350558 A1) in view of Blackwood, et. al. (US 20100300873 A1), hereinafter Blackwood.
Regarding claim 14, Franco does not teach wherein cleaning the sample to remove the redeposition layer is performed during or prior to separating the lamella from the bulk substrate.
Blackwood teaches wherein cleaning the sample to remove the redeposition layer is performed during or prior to separating the lamella from the bulk substrate ([0057] teaches a cleaning cross-section mill in preparation for the undercut step).
Blackwood modifies Franco by suggesting that cleaning is performed prior to separating the lamella from the bulk substrate.
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 Blackwood because cleaning the cross-section mill is a way to prepare for the undercut step, (Blackwood, [0057]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franco (US 20180350558 A1) in view of Potocek, et. al. (US 20220310353 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Franco does not explicitly teach wherein identifying the location of the region of interest comprises performing image processing techniques via segmentation using a convolutional neural network to reduce a detection area and using image processing methods to identify the interface.
Potocek teaches wherein identifying the location of the region of interest comprises performing image processing techniques via segmentation using a convolutional neural network to reduce a detection area and using image processing methods to identify the interface (structure identification module 166 uses CNN on segmented image to identify structures of interest, [0035]).
Potocek modifies Franco by suggesting performing image processing techniques on segmented regions using CNN to reduce detection area and identify interface between substrate and structures of interest.
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 Potocek because doing so allows for identification of structures of interest in an fast/efficient manner, (Potocek, [0035], Abstract)
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 LAURA E TANDY whose telephone number is (703)756-1720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 5712722293. 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.
LAURA E TANDY
Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881