DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art of record does not teach or disclose the plurality of mounting methods is predetermined and corresponding to the shape of the lamella. Specifically, applicant argues that the combination of the prior art of record only teaches one mounting method. However, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the plurality of mounting methods) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Furthermore, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. As the amendments do not recite at least a second method of mounting, it is unclear what the breadth of the claim is attempting to cover. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
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.
Claim 16 is 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.
Regarding claim 16, the method recites the limitation of using a lamella mounting device that includes tweezers for gripping the lamella and a mesh. Using broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, it is unclear how the recited limitations could have information about the shape of the lamella, thereby causing the claim to be indefinite. Furthermore, the amendment does not further make clear how the lamella mounting device can contain the first information.
Furthermore, the claim does not recite at least a second method of mounting, it is unclear what the breadth of the claim is attempting to cover.
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 16-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phaneuf et al. (US PGPub 2020/0264115, hereinafter Phaneuf) in view of Sugaya et al. (US PGPub 2002/0166976, hereinafter Sugaya).
Regarding claim 16, Fig. 11 of Phaneuf discloses a lamella mounting method for mount a lamella (specimen 412) to be analyzed using a charged particle beam device (TEM, see paragraph [0003]) on a mesh (substrate 410 includes TEM grid, see paragraph [0113]) by tweezers (micro-tweezer 414, see paragraph [0113]), the method comprising
(a) a step of gripping the lamella (specimen 412) fabricated on a part of a wafer (a specimen is prepared and extracted from a sample at step 500, see Fig. 14 and paragraph [0122]) and taking out the lamella (specimen) from the wafer by the tweezers (micro-tweezer 414) (at 502, the specimen is moved by a transport tool, such as micro-tweezers, see paragraph [0122]); and
the lamella includes a body and an analysis region provided in a part of the body (step 522, performing final specimen thinning to electron transparency, see paragraph [0122]),
a width of the analysis region in a first direction is different from a width of the body in the first direction (specimen thinning at step 522, see paragraph [0122]; analysis area 220 is the region of interest, being different from the width of the body (e.g. 220 with the handle area 222) of the lamella, depicted in Fig. 9)
the lamella mounting method is performed using a lamella mounting device that includes the tweezers (micro-tweezers) for gripping the lamella and the mesh (TEM grid) for mounting the lamella (material from the substrate 410 sputter off the substrate over the base of the specimen 412 causing mounting, see paragraph [0113]), and
the lamella mounting device has first information about a shape of the lamella (pre-lamella having a designed standard shape is formed, see paragraph [0087]), and is able to execute a mounting method according to the shape of the lamella among a plurality of mounting methods for mounting the lamella to the mesh based on the first information (specimen 412 is positioned for binding or attached to the substrate 410, see paragraph [0113]; plurality of mounting methods including, for example, holding the specimen with or without the micro-tweezer depending on the geometry (i.e. shape) of the specimen, see paragraph [0113]), and
the plurality of mounting methods is predetermined and corresponding to the shape of the lamella (the particular angle chosen depends on the shape of the pre-lamella wall 204 that is to be exposed; the chosen angle determines the final shape of the lamella (see paragraph [0078], which affects the mounting method dependent on the shape of the lamella).
Phaneuf fails to disclose (b) after the step (a), a step of bringing the lamella into close contact with a first film contained in a mesh by moving the tweezers to press the lamella against the first film while the lamella is being gripped by the tweezers and after the step (b), the lamella is in close contact with the first film so that the analysis region faces the first film (exemplified in Fig. 13 before thinning step of 522),
Sugaya teaches a micro-sample 165 is set (i.e. pressed) on an opening 171 of a grid 170 (i.e. mesh) with a thin film made of a carbon based material (see Figs. 22B and 22C and paragraphs [0167-0168]). Fig. 22C depicts the micro-sample 165 with the analysis region facing the thin film made of a carbon based material. Sugaya teaches the thin film is advantageously used to hold the micro-sample 165 and the electron beam for observation can pass through the carbon-based thin film (see paragraph [0168])
Sugaya modifies Phaneuf by suggesting pressing the lamella into contact of a first film in a mesh such that the analysis region faces the first film.
Since both inventions are drawn to TEM analysis, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Phaneuf by bringing the lamella into close contact with a first film contained in a mesh such that the micro-sample is firmly joined onto the holder to mitigate loss of the micro-sample ([0024]) while holding a sample for observation without impeding the electron beam as taught by Sugaya.
Regarding claim 17, Fig. 11 of Phaneuf discloses (c) after the step (b), a step of releasing the lamella from the tweezers (specimen 412 can be placed on the substrate 410 and released by the micro-tweezer 414 before being secured to the substrate 410, see paragraph [0113]); and
(d) after the step (c), a step of changing an orientation of the lamella by moving the tweezers and bringing the tweezers into contact with the lamella (specimen 412 place on substrate 410 but not secured allows tweezers to change orientation based on specimen geometry, see paragraph [0113]), wherein
in the step (b), the analysis region does not face the first film (see Fig. 11), and
by the step (d), the lamella is brought into close contact so that the analysis region faces the substrate (exemplified in Fig. 13, sputtered material of the substrate 422 covers the base of the specimen 412, thereby the analysis region faces the first film, see paragraph [0115]).
Phaneuf fails to disclose the substrate has a first film to contact.
Sugaya teaches a micro-sample 165 is set on an opening 171 of a grid 170 (i.e. mesh) with a thin film made of a carbon based material (see Figs. 22B and 22C and paragraphs [0167-0168]). Sugaya teaches the thin film is advantageously used to hold the micro-sample 165 and the electron beam for observation can pass through the carbon-based thin film (see paragraph [0168])
Sugaya modifies Phaneuf by suggesting pressing the lamella into contact of a first film in a mesh such that the analysis region faces the first film.
Since both inventions are drawn to TEM analysis, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Phaneuf by bringing the lamella into close contact with a first film contained in a mesh for the purpose of holding a sample for observation without impeding the electron beam as taught by Sugaya.
Regarding claim 18, Fig. 11 of Phaneuf discloses the lamella further includes a protruding portion that protrudes from the body in the first direction (asymmetric trenches when forming the pre-lamella results in a tapered bottom of the lamella that decreases as a function of the direction normal to and away from the lamella surface, slope profile of this can be linear, stepped, or curved, see paragraph [0069], exemplified as a tapered bottom edge of lamella in Fig. 11), and
in the step (b), the protruding portion is brought into close contact with the substrate (tapered bottom of lamella is brought in close contact with TEM grid, see Fig. 11 paragraph [0113]).
Phaneuf fails to disclose the substrate has a first film to contact.
Sugaya teaches a micro-sample 165 is set on an opening 171 of a grid 170 (i.e. mesh) with a thin film made of a carbon based material (see Figs. 22B and 22C and paragraphs [0167-0168]). Sugaya teaches the thin film is advantageously used to hold the micro-sample 165 and the electron beam for observation can pass through the carbon-based thin film (see paragraph [0168]).
Sugaya modifies Phaneuf by suggesting pressing the lamella into contact of a first film in a mesh such that the analysis region faces the first film.
Since both inventions are drawn to TEM analysis, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Phaneuf by bringing the lamella into close contact with a first film contained in a mesh for the purpose of holding a sample for observation without impeding the electron beam as taught by Sugaya.
Regarding claim 19, Fig. 11 of Phaneuf discloses the body includes a notched region whose width in the first direction continuously decreases as is far from the analysis region (asymmetric trenches when forming the pre-lamella results in a tapered bottom of the lamella that decreases as a function of the direction normal to and away from the lamella surface, slope profile of this can be linear, stepped, or curved, see paragraph [0069], exemplified as a tapered bottom edge of lamella in Fig. 11), and
in the step (b), the notched region is brough into close contact with the substrate (tapered bottom of lamella is brought in close contact with TEM grid, see Fig. 11 paragraph [0113]).
Phaneuf fails to disclose the substrate has a first film to contact.
Sugaya teaches a micro-sample 165 is set on an opening 171 of a grid 170 (i.e. mesh) with a thin film made of a carbon based material (see Figs. 22B and 22C and paragraphs [0167-0168]). Sugaya teaches the thin film is advantageously used to hold the micro-sample 165 and the electron beam for observation can pass through the carbon-based thin film (see paragraph [0168]).
Sugaya modifies Phaneuf by suggesting pressing the lamella into contact of a first film in a mesh such that the analysis region faces the first film.
Since both inventions are drawn to TEM analysis, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Phaneuf by bringing the lamella into close contact with a first film contained in a mesh for the purpose of holding a sample for observation without impeding the electron beam as taught by Sugaya.
Regarding claim 20, Phaneuf discloses the lamella further includes a protruding portion that protrudes from the body in the first direction (asymmetric trenches when forming the pre-lamella results in a tapered bottom of the lamella that decreases as a function of the direction normal to and away from the lamella surface, slope profile of this can be linear, stepped, or curved, see paragraph [0069], exemplified as a tapered bottom edge of lamella in Fig. 11),
the mesh further includes projections provided on the substrate (TEM carrier grid 400 comprises a post 404, where pre-lamella 402 is attached, see paragraphs [0108-0109]), and
in the step (b), the lamella is brought into close contact with the substrate while the protruding portion is brough into close contact with the projection (see paragraph [0109]).
Phaneuf fails to disclose the substrate has a first film to contact.
Sugaya teaches a micro-sample 165 is set on an opening 171 of a grid 170 (i.e. mesh) with a thin film made of a carbon based material (see Figs. 22B and 22C and paragraphs [0167-0168]). Sugaya teaches the thin film is advantageously used to hold the micro-sample 165 and the electron beam for observation can pass through the carbon-based thin film (see paragraph [0168]).
Sugaya modifies Phaneuf by suggesting pressing the lamella into contact of a first film in a mesh such that the analysis region faces the first film.
Since both inventions are drawn to TEM analysis, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Phaneuf by bringing the lamella into close contact with a first film contained in a mesh for the purpose of holding a sample for observation without impeding the electron beam as taught by Sugaya.
Regarding claim 21, Fig. 10 of Phaneuf discloses the mesh includes two of the projections (TEM carrier grid 400 comprises a post 404, where pre-lamella 402 is attached, see paragraphs [0108-0109]), and
in the step (b), the lamella is brought into close contact with the substrate while the protruding portion is positioned between the two projections (see paragraph [0109]).
Phaneuf fails to disclose the substrate has a first film to contact.
Sugaya teaches a micro-sample 165 is set on an opening 171 of a grid 170 (i.e. mesh) with a thin film made of a carbon based material (see Figs. 22B and 22C and paragraphs [0167-0168]). Sugaya teaches the thin film is advantageously used to hold the micro-sample 165 and the electron beam for observation can pass through the carbon-based thin film (see paragraph [0168]).
Sugaya modifies Phaneuf by suggesting pressing the lamella into contact of a first film in a mesh such that the analysis region faces the first film.
Since both inventions are drawn to TEM analysis, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Phaneuf by bringing the lamella into close contact with a first film contained in a mesh for the purpose of holding a sample for observation without impeding the electron beam as taught by Sugaya.
Regarding claim 22, Fig. 11 of Phaneuf discloses in the step (d), an adhesion force between the substrate and the lamella is greater than an adhesion force between the tweezers and the lamella when the tweezers are in contact with the lamella (specimen 412 can be placed on the substrate 410 and released by the micro-tweezer 414 before being secured to the substrate 410, see paragraph [0113]).
Phaneuf fails to disclose the substrate has a first film to contact.
Sugaya teaches a micro-sample 165 is set on an opening 171 of a grid 170 (i.e. mesh) with a thin film made of a carbon based material (see Figs. 22B and 22C and paragraphs [0167-0168]). Sugaya teaches the thin film is advantageously used to hold the micro-sample 165 and the electron beam for observation can pass through the carbon-based thin film (see paragraph [0168]).
Sugaya modifies Phaneuf by suggesting pressing the lamella into contact of a first film in a mesh such that the analysis region faces the first film.
Since both inventions are drawn to TEM analysis, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Phaneuf by bringing the lamella into close contact with a first film contained in a mesh for the purpose of holding a sample for observation without impeding the electron beam as taught by Sugaya.
Regarding claim 23, Phaneuf discloses the lamella further includes a protruding portion that protrudes from the body in the first direction (pre-lamella specimen has been milled from sample at step 500, including a body portion covering the thin analysis region in a first direction to be further removed at final specimen thinning at step 522, see paragraph [0122]),
in the step (a), the protruding portion is gripped by the tweezers (specimen is assumed to be moved by a transport tool, such as micro-tweezers, see paragraph [0122]), and
in the step (b), the body is brought into close contact with the substrate (step 602) so that the analysis region faces the first film while the protruding portion is gripped by the tweezers (angling of tapered bottom causes the analysis region to face the substrate at an angle, removal of transport tool in later step 608, see paragraph [0122]).
Phaneuf fails to disclose the substrate has a first film to contact.
Sugaya teaches a micro-sample 165 is set on an opening 171 of a grid 170 (i.e. mesh) with a thin film made of a carbon based material (see Figs. 22B and 22C and paragraphs [0167-0168]). Sugaya teaches the thin film is advantageously used to hold the micro-sample 165 and the electron beam for observation can pass through the carbon-based thin film (see paragraph [0168]).
Sugaya modifies Phaneuf by suggesting pressing the lamella into contact of a first film in a mesh such that the analysis region faces the first film.
Since both inventions are drawn to TEM analysis, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Phaneuf by bringing the lamella into close contact with a first film contained in a mesh for the purpose of holding a sample for observation without impeding the electron beam as taught by Sugaya.
Regarding claim 24, Phaneuf discloses in the step (b), an adhesion force between the first film and the lamella is greater than an adhesion force between the tweezers and the lamella when the tweezers are gripping the lamella (specimen 412 can be placed on the substrate 410 and released by the micro-tweezer 414 before being secured to the substrate 410, see paragraph [0113]).
Regarding claim 25, Fig. 7 of Phaneuf discloses an analysis system comprising:
a lamella fabrication device that includes an ion beam column (FIB milling to form pre-lamella, see paragraph [0091]);
a lamella mounting device that includes tweezers for gripping a lamella and a mesh for mounting the lamella (Fig. 11 shows specimen 412 held by micro-tweezers 414 being mounted onto a mesh (TEM grid on substrate 410) by causing material from the substrate to sputter off the substrate and redeposit over the base of the specimen 412, see paragraph [0113]);
a lamella analysis device that includes an electron beam column including an electron source (cathode 52 emits electron beam 43, see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0055]), a sample stage (stage 25), and a holder provided on the sample stage (micromanipulator 47, see paragraph [0062]); and
a control unit that comprehensively controls the lamella fabrication device, the lamella mounting device, and the lamella analysis device (system control 19, see paragraph [0064]), wherein
the analysis system further comprises
In the lamella fabrication device, a step of fabricating the lamella including a body and an analysis region provided in a part of the body by irradiating a wafer with an ion beam from the ion beam column and etching a part of the wafer (specimen is prepared and extracted from a sample at step 500, see paragraph [0122]),
after the step (a), a step of transporting the wafer on which the lamella is fabricated from the lamella fabrication device to the lamella mounting device (specimen is moved by a transport tool, such as micro-tweezers and positioned near the substrate, see paragraph [0122]),
after the step (b), in the lamella mounting device, a step of gripping the lamella fabricated on a part of the wafer and taking out the lamella from the wafer by the tweezers (specimen is moved by a transport tool, such as micro-tweezers and positioned near the substrate, see paragraph [0122]),
after the step (c), in the lamella mounting device, a step of bringing the lamella into close contact with a substrate contained in a mesh by moving the tweezers to press the lamella against the substrate while the lamella is being gripped by the tweezers (exemplified in Fig. 11, micro-tweezers 414 holding the specimen 412 on a substrate 410 including a TEM grid, see paragraph [0113]),
after the step (d), a step of transporting the mesh on which the lamella is mounted from the lamella mounting device to the lamella analysis device (SEM 41, see paragraph [0055]), and
after the step (e), in the lamella analysis device, a step of analyzing the analysis region by irradiating the analysis region with an electron beam from the electron source while the mesh is being placed on the holder so that the analysis region faces the electron source (electron beam 43 focused onto sample 22 and detected by electron detectors 40, see paragraph [0055]),
a width of the analysis region in a first direction is different from a width of the body in the first direction (specimen thinning at step 522, see paragraph [0122]; analysis area 220 is the region of interest, being different from the width of the body (e.g. 220 with the handle area 222) of the lamella, depicted in Fig. 9),
after the step (d) and before the step (e), the lamella is in close contact with the substrate so that the analysis region faces the substrate (exemplified in Fig. 13, sputtered material of the substrate 422 covers the base of the specimen 412, thereby the analysis region faces the first film, see paragraph [0115]),
the control unit is able to acquire first information about a shape of the lamella from the lamella fabrication device (pre-lamella having a designed standard shape is formed, see paragraph [0087]), and
the control unit is able to designate a mounting method according to the shape of the lamella among a plurality of mounting methods for mounting the lamella on the mesh to be lamella mounting device based on the acquired first information (specimen 412 is positioned for binding or attached to the substrate 410, see paragraph [0113]; plurality of mounting methods including, for example, holding the specimen with or without the micro-tweezer depending on the geometry (i.e. shape) of the specimen, see paragraph [0113]), and
the plurality of mounting methods is predetermined and corresponding to the shape of the lamella (the particular angle chosen depends on the shape of the pre-lamella wall 204 that is to be exposed; the chosen angle determines the final shape of the lamella (see paragraph [0078], which affects the mounting method dependent on the shape of the lamella).
Phaneuf fails to disclose the substrate has a first film to contact.
Sugaya teaches a micro-sample 165 is set on an opening 171 of a grid 170 (i.e. mesh) with a thin film made of a carbon based material (see Figs. 22B and 22C and paragraphs [0167-0168]). Sugaya teaches the thin film is advantageously used to hold the micro-sample 165 and the electron beam for observation can pass through the carbon-based thin film (see paragraph [0168]).
Sugaya modifies Phaneuf by suggesting pressing the lamella into contact of a first film in a mesh such that the analysis region faces the first film.
Since both inventions are drawn to TEM analysis, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Phaneuf by bringing the lamella into close contact with a first film contained in a mesh for the purpose of holding a sample for observation without impeding the electron beam as taught by Sugaya.
Regarding claim 26, Phaneuf discloses (g) between the (d) step and the (e) step, a step of releasing the lamella from the tweezers (specimen 412 can be placed on the substrate 410 and released by the micro-tweezer 414 before being secured to the substrate 410, see paragraph [0113]); and
(h) between the step (g) and the step (e), a step of changing an orientation of the lamella by moving the tweezers and bringing the tweezers into contact with the lamella (specimen 412 place on substrate 410 but not secured allows tweezers to change orientation based on specimen geometry, see paragraph [0113]), wherein
in the step (d), the analysis region does not face the substrate (see Fig. 11), and
by the step (h), the lamella is brought into close contact with the substrate so that the analysis region faces the substrate (exemplified in Fig. 13, sputtered material of the substrate 422 covers the base of the specimen 412, thereby the analysis region faces the first film, see paragraph [0115]).
Phaneuf fails to disclose the substrate has a first film to contact.
Sugaya teaches a micro-sample 165 is set on an opening 171 of a grid 170 (i.e. mesh) with a thin film made of a carbon based material (see Figs. 22B and 22C and paragraphs [0167-0168]). Sugaya teaches the thin film is advantageously used to hold the micro-sample 165 and the electron beam for observation can pass through the carbon-based thin film (see paragraph [0168]).
Sugaya modifies Phaneuf by suggesting pressing the lamella into contact of a first film in a mesh such that the analysis region faces the first film.
Since both inventions are drawn to TEM analysis, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Phaneuf by bringing the lamella into close contact with a first film contained in a mesh for the purpose of holding a sample for observation without impeding the electron beam as taught by Sugaya.
Regarding claim 27, Phaneuf discloses the lamella further includes a protruding portion that protrudes from the body in the first direction (asymmetric trenches when forming the pre-lamella results in a tapered bottom of the lamella that decreases as a function of the direction normal to and away from the lamella surface, slope profile of this can be linear, stepped, or curved, see paragraph [0069], exemplified as a tapered bottom edge of lamella in Fig. 11), and
In the step (d), the protruding portion is brought into close contact with the substrate (see paragraph [0109]).
Phaneuf fails to disclose the substrate has a first film to contact.
Sugaya teaches a micro-sample 165 is set on an opening 171 of a grid 170 (i.e. mesh) with a thin film made of a carbon based material (see Figs. 22B and 22C and paragraphs [0167-0168]). Sugaya teaches the thin film is advantageously used to hold the micro-sample 165 and the electron beam for observation can pass through the carbon-based thin film (see paragraph [0168]).
Sugaya modifies Phaneuf by suggesting pressing the lamella into contact of a first film in a mesh such that the analysis region faces the first film.
Since both inventions are drawn to TEM analysis, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Phaneuf by bringing the lamella into close contact with a first film contained in a mesh for the purpose of holding a sample for observation without impeding the electron beam as taught by Sugaya.
Regarding claim 28, Phaneuf discloses the lamella further includes a protruding portion that protrudes from the body in the first direction (asymmetric trenches when forming the pre-lamella results in a tapered bottom of the lamella that decreases as a function of the direction normal to and away from the lamella surface, slope profile of this can be linear, stepped, or curved, see paragraph [0069], exemplified as a tapered bottom edge of lamella in Fig. 11),
the mesh further includes projections provided on the first film (TEM carrier grid 400 comprises a post 404, where pre-lamella 402 is attached, see paragraphs [0108-0109]), and
in the step (d), the lamella is brought into close contact with the substrate while the protruding portion is brought into contact with the projection (see paragraph [0109]).
Phaneuf fails to disclose the substrate has a first film to contact.
Sugaya teaches a micro-sample 165 is set on an opening 171 of a grid 170 (i.e. mesh) with a thin film made of a carbon based material (see Figs. 22B and 22C and paragraphs [0167-0168]). Sugaya teaches the thin film is advantageously used to hold the micro-sample 165 and the electron beam for observation can pass through the carbon-based thin film (see paragraph [0168]).
Sugaya modifies Phaneuf by suggesting pressing the lamella into contact of a first film in a mesh such that the analysis region faces the first film.
Since both inventions are drawn to TEM analysis, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Phaneuf by bringing the lamella into close contact with a first film contained in a mesh for the purpose of holding a sample for observation without impeding the electron beam as taught by Sugaya.
Regarding claim 29, Phaneuf discloses the lamella further includes a protruding portion that protrudes from the body in the first direction (asymmetric trenches when forming the pre-lamella results in a tapered bottom of the lamella that decreases as a function of the direction normal to and away from the lamella surface, slope profile of this can be linear, stepped, or curved, see paragraph [0069], exemplified as a tapered bottom edge of lamella in Fig. 11),
in the step (c), the protruding portion is gripped by the tweezers (specimen is assumed to be moved by a transport tool, such as micro-tweezers, see paragraph [0122]), and
in the step (d), the body is brought into close contact with the substrate so that the analysis region faces the substrate while the protruding portion is being gripped by the tweezers (angling of tapered bottom causes the analysis region to face the substrate at an angle, removal of transport tool in later step 608, see paragraph [0122]).
Phaneuf fails to disclose the substrate has a first film to contact.
Sugaya teaches a micro-sample 165 is set on an opening 171 of a grid 170 (i.e. mesh) with a thin film made of a carbon based material (see Figs. 22B and 22C and paragraphs [0167-0168]). Sugaya teaches the thin film is advantageously used to hold the micro-sample 165 and the electron beam for observation can pass through the carbon-based thin film (see paragraph [0168]).
Sugaya modifies Phaneuf by suggesting pressing the lamella into contact of a first film in a mesh such that the analysis region faces the first film.
Since both inventions are drawn to TEM analysis, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Phaneuf by bringing the lamella into close contact with a first film contained in a mesh for the purpose of holding a sample for observation without impeding the electron beam as taught by Sugaya.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HANWAY CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM 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, Georgia Epps can be reached at (571) 272-2328. 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.
Hanway Chang
/HC/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
/GEORGIA Y EPPS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2878