DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 USC 112(a)
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 6-7, filed 01/22/2026, with respect to the enablement rejection of claim 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC 112(a) of claim 14 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7, with respect to the scope of enablement rejection of claim 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC 112(a) of claim 10 has been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 USC 112(b)
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 7-9, with respect to the indefiniteness rejection of claim 7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC 112(b) of claim 7 has been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103, the arguments are found to be unpersuasive because, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, Kaji, et. al. (US 20020096632 A1) (Kaji) teaches each and every element as set forth in the claims as required for anticipation.
As discussed in the remarks on pgs. 9-10, claim 1 broadly requires “one or more charged particle optical elements calibrated for a first energy” and “one or more charged particle elements calibrated for a second energy.” Applicant argues that Kaji does not anticipate the claim because ‘Kaji is silent with respect to different calibrations for different energies’ (see pg. 9 of the applicant’s remarks) and due to the ‘absence of inherent disclosure (see pg. 11 of the applicant remarks). However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, “calibrated for a second energy” includes an interpretation in which the optical elements within the EELS portion of the system (15, 19, and 11 of Kaji) are adjusted according to an energy range depending on the element to be observed, as is taught in Kaji, paragraph [0042]. In this case, ‘adjust’ is synonymous with ‘calibrate’ as used in the claim to indicate a modification to optical elements of the system, and this adjustment/calibration is for the energy of the element to be observed. Further, “calibrated for a first energy” includes an interpretation in which the optical elements (3 and 4 of Kaji) of the electron microscope are adjusted and set so that the electron beam impinges on and scans the surface of the specimen (Kaji, [0036]), which occurs at an energy of the electron beam. An energy of the electron beam is different than the energy range of the element to be observed by the EELS spectrometer, resulting in the claimed calibration for a first energy and calibration for a second energy.
The arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 are moot because Kaji anticipates claim 1, as discussed above.
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
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaji, et. al. (US 20020096632 A1), hereinafter Kaji.
Regarding claim 1, Kaji teaches a charged particle microscope system (Fig. 1a), comprising:
a beam column section (vertical part of the charged particle microscope system shown in Fig. 1a, including elements 1, 3, 4, 20, 5, 6, 8, 21, 16), comprising:
one or more charged particle optical elements calibrated for a first energy (electron beam scan coil 3 and objective lens 4 must be inherently calibrated to the energy of the electron beam produced by electron beam source 1 in order to focus the beam on the specimen 5 as described, [0036]); and
one or more charged particle optical elements calibrated for a second energy (electromagnetic field lens 16, which is adjusted for focus to an energy specific to the element being observed, [0042]); and
a detector section, disposed at a position downstream of the beam column section (elements 11, 19, 15, 12, 18, 13 in Fig. 1a) and comprising an electrostatic or magnetic prism (magnetic field sector 11, [0037]) and one or more charged particle optical elements calibrated for the second energy (magnetic lens 15, drift tube 19, and magnetic field sector 11 are controlled in accordance with the energy specific to the element being observed, [0042]),
wherein the first energy and the second energy are different (The elements 16, 11, 19, 15 are calibrated to an energy based on the element being observed on the sample, whereas elements 3 and 4 are calibrated to act on the electron beam generated by electron source 6 to be focused on specimen 5. The elements 16, 11, 19, and 15 have to be controlled and adjusted as described in [0042] because the energy of the beam is different after interacting with the element of the specimen.).
Regarding claim 2, Kaji teaches wherein:
the beam column section further comprises a sample section (area of the microscope shown in Fig. 1a containing the sample, including elements objective lens 4 and specimen 5);
the one or more charged particle optical elements calibrated for the first energy are upstream of a sample disposed in the sample section, relative to a charged particle source (3 and 4 are upstream of 5, Fig. 1a); and
the one or more charged particle optical elements of the beam column calibrated for the second energy are disposed downstream of the sample section (16 is downstream of 5, Fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 3, Kaji teaches wherein the sample section includes an objective lens, and wherein the sample is immersed in an objective field of the objective lens (objective lens 4, [0036], Fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 4, Kaji teaches wherein the detector section comprises an EELS spectrometer ([0035], Fig. 1a), calibrated to detect charged particles having an energy about the second energy ([0042]), based at least in part on energy transfer with inner shell electrons in a sample ([0052]).
Regarding claim 7, Maclaren teaches wherein:
the first energy and the second energy are related by the expression A = |(ΔE+E2- E1)/E2|, where ΔE is the energy loss associated with an edge (keV), E1 is the first energy (keV), and E2 is the second energy (keV); and the expression A is less than or equal to about 5% (if ΔE is 1.5 kEv (Al-K edge) or 0.53 keV (O-K edge), for example, see top of right column pg. 78, E1 is 200 keV, and E2 is 197.5 keV (energy loss of 2.5 keV), then these values fulfill the expression because |(1.5 + 197.5 -200)/200| = 0.5% < 5%).
Regarding claim 9, Kaji teaches further comprising:
control circuitry, operably coupled with the beam column section and the detector section (central controller 26, Fig. 1a); and
one or more non-transitory machine-readable storage media, storing machine executable instructions that, when executed by the control circuitry, cause the charged particle microscope system to perform operations (controller 26 with memory 27 and input apparatus 31, Fig. 1a, [0018]) comprising:
generating a beam of charged particles at the first energy (electron beam source 1 produces a beam at some first energy to converge the beam on specimen 5, [0036], Fig. 1a); and
generating detector data using the detector section, the detector data describing charged particles at about the second energy (electron energy loss spectrum produced by electron beam detector 13 described electrons in the energy range adjusted for based on the element, [0042], Fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 10, Kaji teaches wherein:
a calibration scheme for the first energy comprises a first set of operating parameters (parameters relating to scan coil 3 and objective lens 4 that create the magnetic field that allows the beam onto the specimen, [0036]. As seen in Fig. 1a STEM controller controls these elements, demonstrating that they are adjusted (calibrated));
a calibration scheme for the second energy comprises a second set of operating parameters ([0042], central controller provides energy filter controller 28 with measuring conditions of the optical elements 16, 15, 19, and 11 to be adjusted (calibrated) according to an energy specific to the element of the sample being observed); and
the first set of operating parameters and the second set of operating parameters are related by a scaling factor based at least in part on the energy dependence of refractive effects of the optical elements calibrated for the second energy (Since the optical elements 16, 15, 19, and 11 are adjusted based on the energy related to the beam and the sample, the parameters related to optical elements 3 and 4 will inherently be related by some scaling factor to the parameters relating to the optical elements 16, 15, 19, and 11 and their inherent refractive properties).
Regarding claim 11, Kaji teaches one or more non-transitory machine-readable storage media storing instructions that, when executed by a machine, cause the machine to perform operations comprising:
recalibrating one or more charged particle optical elements of a charged particle microscope system from a first energy to a second energy (adjusting magnetic field lens 16 for an energy according to the element information, [0042], [0045]), such that the charged particle microscope system comprises:
a beam column section (vertical part of the charged particle microscope system shown in Fig. 1a, including elements 1, 3, 4, 20, 5, 6, 8, 21, 16), comprising:
one or more charged particle optical elements calibrated for the first energy (electron beam scan coil 3 and objective lens 4 must be inherently calibrated to the energy of the electron beam produced by electron beam source 1 in order to focus the beam on the specimen 5, [0036]); and
one or more charged particle optical elements calibrated for the second energy (electromagnetic field lens 16, which is adjusted for focus to an energy specific to the element being observed, [0042]); and
a detector section, disposed at a position downstream of the beam column section (elements 11, 19, 15, 12, 18, 13 in Fig. 1a) and comprising a magnetic or electrostatic prism (magnetic field sector 11, [0037]) and one or more charged particle optical elements calibrated for the second energy (magnetic lens 15, drift tube 19, and magnetic field sector 11 are controlled in accordance with the energy specific to the element being observed, [0042]), wherein the first energy and the second energy are different (The elements 16, 11, 19, 15 are calibrated to an energy based on the element being observed on the sample, whereas elements 3 and 4 are calibrated to act on the electron beam generated by electron source 6 to be focused on specimen 5. The elements 16, 11, 19, and 15 have to be controlled and adjusted as described in [0042] because the energy of the beam is different after interacting with the element of the specimen.).
Regarding claim 12, Kaji teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
generating a beam of charged particles at the first energy (electron beam source 1 force a beam of charged particles at an interpreted first energy, [0036]); and
generating detector data using the detector section, the detector data describing charged particles at about the second energy (electron energy loss spectrum produced by electron beam detector 13 described electrons in the energy range adjusted for based on the element, [0042], Fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 13, Kaji teaches wherein the detector data comprise electron energy loss spectrum (EELS) data ([0042] electron energy loss spectrum).
Regarding claim 14, Kaji teaches wherein the operations further comprise determining an interatomic spacing parameter of a sample using the detector data ([0078] recites a peak of an electron energy loss spectrum caused by inner shell excitation. Such peak of such a spectrum can be considered an interatomic spacing parameter since inner shell excitation is related to interatomic spacing).
Regarding claim 15, Kaji teaches wherein recalibrating the one or more charged particle optical elements calibrated from the first energy to the second energy comprises:
measuring the collection angle of the EELS spectrometer; or
centering the beam with respect to the EELS spectrometer (Abstract, [0047], [0074]).
Regarding claim 16, wherein the operations further comprise:
recalibrating the charged particle optical elements calibrated for the first energy from the first energy to the second energy ([0043]-[0046]);
generating a beam of charged particles at the second energy (electron beam source 1 produces beam of energy, [0043]-[0046]); and
generating detector data using the detector section, the detector data describing charged particles at about the second energy (electron energy loss spectrum, [0043]-[0046]).
Regarding claim 17, Kaji teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
receiving user interaction data via an interactive user interface, the interaction data corresponding to an action by a user to initiate recalibration of the one or more elements of the charged particle microscope system ([0057]).
Regarding claim 18, Kaji teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
generating user interface data configured to modify a display being operably coupled with the charged particle microscope system to present the interactive user interface (display apparatus 25 [0042], [0046], [0039], [0057], [0063], Fig. 1a).
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.
Claims 5, 6, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaji (US 20020096632 A1) in view of Maclaren, et. al. (EELS at very high energy losses. Microscopy. 2018. 78-85.), hereinafter Maclaren (Maclaren is from IDS filed 04/12/2023).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Kaji does not teach wherein a difference between the first energy and the second energy is from about 2 keV to about 50 keV.
Maclaren teaches wherein a difference between the first energy and the second energy is from about 2 keV to about 50 keV (Abstract teaches energy losses between 2 to > 10keV, see also pg. 79 left column second paragraph- right column first paragraph, which [9] (Cravens, et. al.) as providing the general set up in which the post-specimen optics including projector system are optimized for high energy loss),
Maclaren modifies Kaji by suggesting that a TEM-EELS system optimized for high energy losses greater than 2 keV.
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 Maclaren because it is desirable to investigate and improve high loss performance in EELS in order to probe key information including the unoccupied density of sates in a material, (Maclaren, Abstract and Introduction, pg. 78).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Kaji does not teach wherein the second energy is from about 90% to about 97.5% of the first energy.
Maclaren teaches wherein the second energy is from about 90% to about 97.5% of the first energy (5 keV (Abstract) is 97.5% of 200 keV beam, pg. 78 right column second paragrah, pg. 79 left column 2nd paragraph).
Maclaren modifies Kaji by suggesting that a TEM-EELS system optimized for high energy losses relative to the electron beam.
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 Maclaren because it is desirable to investigate and improve high loss performance in EELS in order to probe key information including the unoccupied density of sates in a material, (Maclaren, Abstract and Introduction, pg. 78).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaji (US 20020096632 A1) in view of Maclaren (EELS at very high energy losses. Microscopy. 2018. 78-85.), in view of Henstra, et. al. (US 20170125210 A1), hereinafter Henstra.
Regarding claim 8, Kaji does not teach wherein the first energy is about 300 keV and the second energy is from about 270 keV to about 295 keV.
Maclaren does not explicitly teach wherein the first energy is about 300 keV and the second energy is from about 270 keV to about 295 keV, however Maclaren does teach a TEM-EELS system optimized for high energy losses on this scale (see Abstract and Introduction which teach optimized optical coupling of the microscope to the spectrometer for energy losses in the range from 2 to > 10 keV)
Henstra teaches a first energy of 300 keV ([0049]).
Maclaren and Henstra modifiy the combination by suggesting wherein the first energy is 300 keV and the second energy is from about 270 keV to about 295 keV.
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 Maclaren because it is desirable to investigate and improve high loss performance in EELS in order to probe key information including the unoccupied density of sates in a material, (Maclaren, Abstract and Introduction, pg. 78). Further, 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 Henstra because 300 keV is a common beam energy used in a STEM used in conjunction with a PCF (Henstra, [0049], [0135]).
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 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
Prosecution Insights