DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 6 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.
Claim 6 recites the term “coercive force of the sample”, which is a term not defined in the specification so that it is unclear what force is meant. Examiner suggests that “magnetic force of the sample on the beam electrons” would be clearer.
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 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohashi (US 20180174795 A1) in view of Kohashi (US 20080217533 A1, hereinafter Kohashi ‘533) .
Regarding claim 1, Kohashi teaches a spin-polarized scanning electron microscope (fig. 11) comprising:
A spin-polarized electron source ([0114]) configured to irradiate a sample (1108) with a spin polarized electron beam (1103) that is an electron beam whose spin is deflected in a specific direction;
A scanning unit (1106, [0117]) configured to scan the sample by deflecting the spin-polarized electron beam.
Kohashi does not teach a spin detector that detects a spin direction of an emitted electron that is an electron emitted from the sample scanned with the spin-polarized electron, or a control unit configured to control the spin direction to be detected with the spin detector based on the spin direction of the spin-polarized electron beam.
Kohashi ‘533 teaches a spin-polarized electron microscope having a spin detector (spin polarimeter 809), that detects a spin direction of an emitted electron and a control unit (spin rotation device 808) controlling the spin direction to be detected with the spin detector based on the spin direction of the spin-polarized electron beam (selecting which spin is to be imaged, [0042-0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kohashi to have the spin polarization control system of Kohashi ‘533, in order to allow detection of the secondary electrons with better signal-to-noise ratio and high throughput (Kohashi ‘533, [0043]).
Regarding claim 3, Kohashi ‘533 teaches that the spin polarimeter can image spins in any direction ([0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the detection direction to be the direction of emission of the polarized particles, as a matter of selecting an obvious direction (detecting any electrons not affected by the sample) with no unexpected result.
Regarding claim 4, Kohashi ‘533 teaches detecting the spin direction of the emitted electron ([0043]) which is some direction with respect to the spin direction of the spin-polarized electron beam.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohashi in view of Kohashi ‘533 and in further view of Tanaka (US 20130009058 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kohashi and Kohashi ‘533 teach all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Kohashi and Kohashi ‘533 do not teach that the control unit causes the spin-polarized electron source to irradiate the sample with a pulsed spin-polarized electron beam before the detection performed by the spin detector.
Tanaka teaches a spin-polarized electron beam which irradiates a sample with a pulsed spin-polarized electron beam ([0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kohashi and Kohashi ‘533 to have the pulsed beam of Tanaka, in order to reduce noise and provide an image with reduced damage to the sample as described by Tanaka ([0017-0018]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohashi in view of Kohashi ‘533 and Tanaka and in further view of Kuwabara (JP 2017004774 A) .
Regarding claim 6, Kohashi, Kohashi ‘533 and Tanaka teach all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Kohashi, Kohashi ‘533 and Tanaka do not teach that an intensity of the pulsed spin-polarized electron beam is set according to a thickness or coercive force of a sample.
Kuwabara teaches a spin-polarized electron system which sets an intensity of the beam according to the magnetic force of the sample (p. 2 paragraph 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the intensity of the beam based on the coercive force of the sample as taught by Kuwabara in order to reduce the interference of the sample with the beam and ensure clear imaging as described by Kuwabara.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose or make obvious a spin-polarized scanning electron microscope which controls in synchronization with scanning of a scanning unit, the spin direction of the spin-polarized electron beam and the spin direction of the emitted electron to be detected by the spin detector, or a spin-polarized scanning electron microscope in which a sample includes a virus and the control unit determines a type of the virus included in the sample by comparing chirality data of the virus obtained from a signal detected by the spin detector with a database in which chirality data of various viruses is recorded.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:30 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 22293. 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.
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881