DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a mounting portion… to mount the sample stage and is provided below the electron gun in the lens barrel” in claim in claim 1 (no disclosed structure).
“a moving mechanism…the first x-ray detector is movable by the moving mechanism” in claim 1 (no disclosed structure).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-14 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 invokes 35 USC 112(f) for the limitations recited above, however the specification is devoid of any structure sufficient to perform the claimed functions. MPEP 2163.03 (VI) recites
“A claim limitation expressed in means- (or step-) plus-function language "shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof." 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. If the specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation is indefinite because the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). Such a limitation also lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention.”
Here, the functionally claimed mounting portion and movement mechanism would cover all ways of performing the mounting and movement and indicates the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-14 lack written description by virtue of their dependencies on rejected claim 1.
Claim 13 lacks written description for “the sample that is determined to pass in determination of the screening”. Specifically, MPEP 2163.03 (V) recites: “An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved”.
Here, the claimed result achieved is a determination of pass in a determination of the screening. The instant specification teaches the screening involves capturing an image created under signal electrons observed by a detector or Xray XL generated from the sample SAM detected by x-ray detector and elemental analysis of the sample SAM is executed ([0089] of the published application). Paragraph [0089] recites “when the sample SAM is largely broken or when an element that is clearly different from an assumed element is detected, the determination of the screening is a failure. The sample SAM that is determined as a failure is discarded, and another sample SAM is newly transported to the inside of the lens barrel 2. On the other hand, Step S5 and the subsequent steps are executed only on the sample SAM that is determined as pass in the determination of the screening.”
That is, this paragraph only recites that a determination is made, however fails to identify how the determination is performed to achieve the claimed result of passing a determination. There is no further discussion with respect to the screening, therefore claim 13 fails to meet the written description requirement under 35 USC § 112(a).
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 1-14 are 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 limitation “a mounting portion that is provided to mount the sample stage” and “a moving mechanism…the first x-ray detector is movable by the moving mechanism” (claim 1) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of structure to perform the functionally claimed limitations. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
All dependent claims are vague and indefinite by virtue of their dependencies on rejected claim 1.
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 1-3 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagi et al. (US 2018/0374671) in view of Sasaki et al. (JP202057514) (copy of publication and machine translation submitted herewith).
Regarding claim 1, Yagi et al. teaches a charged particle beam apparatus (fig. 1) comprising:
a lens barrel (optical column);
an electron gun (11) configured to emit an electron beam (EB) and provided in the lens barrel (as seen in figure 1);
a stage (110 best seen in figures 2-4, shaft member moves ([0040]) thus is a stage) provided in the lens barrel (110 is in the optical axis as seen in figure 4, thus inside the column of figure 1. See also paragraph [0040] for “the shaft portion 110 can be movably mounted in the sample holder mounting hole 4 while the inside of the sample chamber 2 is kept airtight. In the illustrated example, the shaft portion 110 has an axis extending along the X-axis”);
a transport port (port (figure 1) for accepting shaft portion 110 (see figures 2-3)) provided in the lens barrel (as seen in figure 1) to transport a sample stage (stage 130) on which a sample (sample mounted stage 130) is mounted from an outside to an inside of the lens barrel or from the inside to the outside of the lens barrel (inherent for sample to be inserted or removed from TEM); and
a plurality of X-ray detectors (EDS spectrometers 20/30 in figure 3) configured to detect an X- ray and provided in the lens barrel (as seen in figure 3, wherein figure 1 shows 30 within the optical column),
wherein the stage includes a mounting portion (frame 120 (including120/124/126)) that is provided to mount the sample stage ([0045]) and is provided below the electron gun in the lens barrel (figure 3 shows 124/122 downstream the optical axis of 13, which is in the lens barrel in figure 1 and downstream the electron gun 11), the mounting portion includes at least an opening portion that is formed to open on an optical axis (frame is open when stage is not mounted therein), when the sample stage is mounted on the mounting portion, the sample is positioned in the opening portion to be positioned on the optical axis (fig. 3 shows sample stage 130 mounted between 122/124 such that the sample “S” is positioned in the opening portion on the optical axis).
Yagi fails to disclose a moving mechanism is electrically connected to a first X-ray detector closest to the transport port among the plurality of X-ray detectors, the first X-ray detector is movable by the moving mechanism in a direction toward or away from the mounting portion, and a position of the first X-ray detector when the first X- ray detector is moved closest to the mounting portion overlaps a transport path through which the sample stage passes from the transport port to the mounting portion in a plan view.
However, Sasaki et al. teaches a moving mechanism is electrically connected to a first X-ray detector closest to the transport port among the plurality of X-ray detectors (figures 1-11 show a drive unit 19 connected to one or more x-ray detectors (18), thus connected to all x-ray detectors include a x-ray detector closest to the transport port (see figure 1 for port receiving holder 13)),
the first X-ray detector is movable by the moving mechanism in a direction toward or away from the mounting portion (drive 19 moves detector 18 towards or away from holder 13 (i.e. mounting portion (i.e. frame in Yagi)) as seen by arrows in figures 4-5, 9-10, wherein figure 11 is disclosed to operate similarly), and
a position of the first X-ray detector when the first X- ray detector is moved closest to the mounting portion (figure 4 shows 18 at a position closest (“D”) to the mounting portion (holder 13) as indicated by down arrows. Alternatively, figure 9 shows detector 18b moved to a closest position D1 as indicated by arrows ) overlaps a transport path through which the sample stage passes from the transport port to the mounting portion in a plan view (since the detector moves together with the sample holder (i.e. including a stage for movement as indicated by arrows in figures 4 and 9), when moving in the positive or negative y direction (i.e. figures 4-5) or in the positive or negative x direction (i.e. figure 9-10) the detector 18 overlaps a transport path through which the sample stage (i.e. included in the sample holder of Yagi) passes from the transport port through which the sample stage passes from the transport port to the mounting position (i.e. as seen in figure 1). See annotated figures below).
PNG
media_image1.png
862
815
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
582
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
536
862
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Or
PNG
media_image4.png
1058
571
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Sasaki modifies Yagi by suggesting movement of the x-ray detectors.
Since both inventions are directed toward EDS in a TEM, it would have been obvious to modify Yagi to include the movement device for the EDS detectors as suggested by Sasaki because it minimize the distance between the x-ray source (i.e. sample) and the detectors to improve efficiency, while preventing contact between the detector and the holder therefore protecting both from damage ([0052] and [0056]).
Regarding claim 2, Yagi in view of Saski teach wherein the transport of the sample stage from the outside to the inside of the lens barrel or from the inside to the outside of the lens barrel is executed in a state where the first X-ray detector is moved away from the mounting portion (Saski, note each detector 18 may move in a positive or negative direction (see figures 4-5 and 9-10), therefore the drives 19 are capable of removing the detectors away from the holder when transporting the sample holder into or out of the TEM (i.e. lens barrel)).
Regarding claim 3, Yagi in view of Saski teaches wherein the sample is analyzed by emitting the electron beam from the electron gun along the optical axis (Saski see figure 1) in a state where the first X-ray detector is moved close to the mounting portion (see figure 4, moved close to distance D or figure 9 close to distance d1/d2) and detecting a characteristic X-ray generated from the sample to which the electron beam is emitted with the plurality of X-ray detectors (inherent to EDS detectors).
Regarding claim 10, Yagi in view of Saski teaches wherein a position of a second X-ray detector (30, see figure 3) that is positioned farther from the transport port than the first X-ray detector (30 is further from the transport port for receiving 110 than 20 as seen in figure 3) among the plurality of X-ray detectors is fixed (detectors are fixed in Yagi, however even as modified by Saski the detectors only move if initiated by drive 19 thus detectors may be fixed), and
a distance between a tip portion of the second X-ray detector and the mounting portion is the same as a distance between a tip portion of the first X-ray detector (distance between 32/22 to frame 120 are the same as seen in figure 3) when the first X-ray detector is moved closest to the mounting portion and the mounting portion (as modified by Saski because the x-ray detectors of Saski are driven by drives, the drives are capable of making the distances between the holder and detectors the same).
Regarding claim 11, Yagi in view of Saski teaches wherein the moving mechanism is electrically connected to the second X-ray detector that is positioned farther from the transport port than the first X-ray detector among the plurality of X-ray detectors, and the second X-ray detector is movable by the moving mechanism in a direction toward or away from the mounting portion (Saski teaches a drive for each detector, see figures annotated herein above).
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo (JP4190832) (copy of publication and machine translation submitted herewith) in view of Sasaki et al.
Regarding claim 1, Kondo teaches a charged particle beam apparatus (fig. 1) comprising:
a lens barrel (2);
an electron gun (3) configured to emit an electron beam (inherent to an electron gun) and provided in the lens barrel (as seen in figure 1);
a stage (17 best seen in figure 3a) provided in the lens barrel (17 within 2 as seen in figure 3a);
a transport port (2a) to transport a sample stage (H) on which a sample is mounted (sample holder H holds a sample) from an outside to an inside of the lens barrel or from the inside to the outside of the lens barrel (inherent for sample to be inserted or removed from TEM); and
wherein the stage includes a mounting portion (fig. 3a, 42) that is provided to mount the sample stage ([0011]) and is provided below the electron gun in the lens barrel (as seen in figures 1 and 3a, 42 is in barrel 2 below the electron gun 3), the mounting portion includes at least an opening portion that is formed to open on an optical axis (beam passage hole 42b of 42 see figure 3a and paragraph [0028]), when the sample stage is mounted on the mounting portion, the sample is positioned in the opening portion to be positioned on the optical axis (inherent for the sample to undergo microscopy via TEM).
Kondo fails to disclose a plurality of X-ray detectors configured to detect an X- ray and provided in the lens barrel, wherein the stage includes a mounting portion that is provided to mount the sample stage and is provided below the electron gun in the lens barrel; a moving mechanism is electrically connected to a first X-ray detector closest to the transport port among the plurality of X-ray detectors, the first X-ray detector is movable by the moving mechanism in a direction toward or away from the mounting portion, and a position of the first X-ray detector when the first X- ray detector is moved closest to the mounting portion overlaps a transport path through which the sample stage passes from the transport port to the mounting portion in a plan view.
However, Saski teaches a plurality of X-ray detectors (18) configured to detect an X- ray and provided in the lens barrel (as seen in figure 1), wherein the stage includes a mounting portion that is provided to mount the sample stage and is provided below the electron gun in the lens barrel; a moving mechanism is electrically connected to a first X-ray detector closest to the transport port among the plurality of X-ray detectors, the first X-ray detector is movable by the moving mechanism in a direction toward or away from the mounting portion, and a position of the first X-ray detector when the first X- ray detector is moved closest to the mounting portion overlaps a transport path through which the sample stage passes from the transport port to the mounting portion in a plan view (see discussion above).
Saski modifies Kondo by suggesting the use of movable X-ray detectors in the device of Kondo.
Since both inventions are directed towards TEM, it would have been obvious to implement EDS in the TEM of Kondo as suggested by Saski because it would facilitate compositional information of the sample therefore improving the amount of data that may be obtained in a single analysis ([0002]). Moreover, as discussed above making the detectors movable improves the efficiency of X-ray detection.
Regarding claim 2, Kondo in view of Saski teach wherein the transport of the sample stage from the outside to the inside of the lens barrel or from the inside to the outside of the lens barrel is executed in a state where the first X-ray detector is moved away from the mounting portion (Saski, note each detector 18 may move in a positive or negative direction (see figures 4-5 and 9-10), therefore the drives 19 are capable of removing the detectors away from the holder when transporting the sample holder into or out of the TEM (i.e. lens barrel)).
Regarding claim 3, Kondo in view of Saski teaches wherein the sample is analyzed by emitting the electron beam from the electron gun along the optical axis (Saski see figure 1) in a state where the first X-ray detector is moved close to the mounting portion (see figure 4, moved close to distance D or figure 9 close to distance d1/d2) and detecting a characteristic X-ray generated from the sample to which the electron beam is emitted with the plurality of X-ray detectors (inherent to EDS detectors).
Regarding claim 5, Kondo teaches wherein the stage further includes a peripheral portion (17b) of which a planar shape is annular (as seen in figure 3a) and a support portion (21-24 in figure 3a) extending from the peripheral portion to the mounting portion (various members supporting 42 from 17b as seen in figure 4), wherein the peripheral portion is connected to the lens barrel (via 21-24 in figure 3a), one end portion of the support portion is connected to the peripheral portion (fig. 4 shows various members supporting 42 connected to 17b), and the other end portion of the support portion is connected to the mounting portion (second end of supporting members connected to 42).
Regarding claim 6, Kondo in view of Saski teach wherein the plurality of X-ray detectors are provided at a position not overlapping the mounting portion and the support portion in a plan view (Saski shows a distance between the detectors 18 and the sample holder, thus non-overlapping with the mounting portion of Kondo (i.e. sample holder 42)).
Regarding claim 7, Kondo in view of Saski teach wherein an outer peripheral shape of the mounting portion in a plan view is polygonal (Kondo, the holder 42 is rectangular), a tip portion of each of the plurality of X-ray detectors faces each of sides of the mounting portion in a plan view (as modified by Saski, figure 9-11 shows a plurality of x-ray detectors each face a side of the mounting portion in plan view), and the other end portion of the support portion supports any of corners of the mounting portion in a plan view (various components supporting 42 seen in figure 4, wherein the components support the corners indirectly by supporting the mounting portion 42).
Regarding claim 9, Kondo teaches wherein any of the corners of the mounting portion in a plan view faces the transport port (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image5.png
638
758
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Kondo in view of Saski teaches the charged particle beam apparatus according to claim 1 (see discussion above).
Kondo further teaches a sample analysis method comprising
(a) a step of preparing the sample stage on which the sample is mounted and a transport rod (as seen in figure 1 transport rod C1);
(b) a step of placing the sample stage on the transport rod after the step (a) (see paragraph [0030]);
(c) a step of inserting the transport rod into the lens barrel from the outside of the lens barrel through the transport port after the step (b) ([0032]);
(d) a step of mounting the sample stage on the mounting portion such that the sample is positioned on the optical axis after the step (c) ([0032]);
(e) a step of separating the transport rod from the sample stage and retracting the transport rod up to a position not interfering with the X-ray detector after the step (d) ([0032] note C is moved backwards);
Kondo fails to disclose (c) inserting the transport rod into the lens barrel in a state where the first X-ray detector is moved away from the mounting portion after the step (b); Not interfering with the x-ray detector (f) a step of moving the first X-ray detector toward the mounting portion after the step (e);(g) a step of emitting the electron beam from the electron gun along the optical axis after the step (f); and (h) a step of detecting, with the plurality of X-ray detectors, a characteristic X-ray generated from the sample when the electron beam is emitted to the sample after the step (g).
However, Saski teaches (c) inserting the transport rod into the lens barrel in a state where the first X-ray detector is moved away from the mounting portion after the step (b) ([0067] teaches the introduction position of the EDS detector is predetermined arbitrary position and is a position where the sample holder and the EDS detector do not come in contact. Thus moved away from the sample holder (i.e. not coming into contact with the mounting portion)); Not interfering with the x-ray detector ([0056] teaches no contact between sample holder and detector) (f) a step of moving the first X-ray detector toward the mounting portion after the step (e) ([0068] controller acquires position information of sample holder and paragraph [0069] EDS detector drive moves detector so that the distance becomes preset distance (i.e. moves toward the mounting position to preset distance D as seen in figures));(g) a step of emitting the electron beam from the electron gun along the optical axis after the step (f) (inherent to perform EDS); and (h) a step of detecting, with the plurality of X-ray detectors, a characteristic X-ray generated from the sample when the electron beam is emitted to the sample after the step (g) (inherent for EDS).
Saski modifies Kondo by suggesting the use of movable X-ray detectors in the device of Kondo.
Since both inventions are directed towards TEM, it would have been obvious to implement EDS in the TEM of Kondo as suggested by Saski because it would facilitate compositional information of the sample therefore improving the amount of data that may be obtained in a single analysis ([0002]). Moreover, as discussed above making the detectors movable improves the efficiency of X-ray detection.
Regarding claim 13, Kondo in view of Saski teach wherein screening of the sample is executed between the step (e) and the step (f) (Saski, wherein screening is interpreted to be the part done by the controller in paragraph [0068] to determine position information of the sample holder (i.e. and sample mounted thereon) prior to the step positioning the EDS detector in paragraph [0069]), and the step (f), the step (g), and the step (h) are executed only on the sample that is determined as pass in determination of the screening (EDS is only performed when detector has reached predetermined (preset) distance with respect to sample holder [0069]).
Regarding claim 14, Kondo in view of Saski teach wherein the moving mechanism is electrically connected to all of the plurality of X-ray detectors (Saski, 19 attached to each x-ray detector 18), all of the plurality of X-ray detectors are movable by the moving mechanism in a direction toward or away from the optical axis (as seen in figures 9 and 10 not arrows), and in the analysis step that is executed by emitting the electron beam to the sample, the steps other than the step of detecting the characteristic X-ray are executed in a state where all of the plurality of X-ray detectors are moved away from the mounting portion (see discussion above with respect to no contact between sample holder and detectors thus the detectors are always in a state where they are moved away from the sample holder (i.e. mounting portion)).
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo in view of Sasaki et al. and further in view of Benner et al. (US pgPub 2012/0326032).
Regarding claim 4, the combined device differs from the claimed invention by not disclosing wherein each of the plurality of X-ray detectors (351/352 and 353/354) includes a first sensor for detecting the characteristic X-ray generated from an upper surface side of the sample and a second sensor for detecting the characteristic X-ray generated from a lower surface side of the sample.
However, Benner et al. teach wherein each of the plurality of X-ray detectors (351/352 and 353/354) includes a first sensor (353 or 351) for detecting the characteristic X-ray generated from an upper surface side of the sample (as seen in figure 1) and a second sensor (352 or 354) for detecting the characteristic X-ray generated from a lower surface side of the sample (as seen in figure 1).
Benner modifies the combined device by suggesting sensors that detect x-ray s from above and below the sample.
Since both inventions are directed towards EDS detection in a TEM, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the upper and lower portions of each sensor as suggested in Benner in the combined device because the different elevations allow for suitable analysis to “determine the respective proportion of X-ray bremsstrahlung impinging on the substrates with a comparatively high accuracy and to subtract it from the recorded spectra, such that the remaining portions of characteristic X-ray radiation can be calculated precisely, and the composition of the object at the impingement location of the particle beam can be determined therefrom with a relatively high significance” ([0015]).
Regarding claim 8, the combined device in view of Benner teach wherein the number of the plurality of X-ray detectors is the same as the number of the sides of the mounting portion in a plan view (Kondo shows for sides of 42, Benner shows four detectors 35)—thus the number of detectors is the same as the number of sides).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240120169 teaches a similar support structure for the sample stage (see figure 2)
US2017/0236680 teaches movable EDS detectors in a TEM system.
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
Prosecution Insights