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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 12-20 in the reply filed on May 19, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(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 12-19 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 12 recites the limitation “the etching”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Bret; Tristan et al. (US 20120273458 A1). Bret teaches an apparatus (Figure 1), comprising: a focused ion beam system (127; Figure 1; “...Examples of alternative particle beams are ion beams”; [0096],[0112]) configured to deliver a focused ion beam to a sample (105; Figure 1; [0096]); and a pre-conditioned gas delivery system (150+165; Figure 1-”depositon gas”-[0049],[0102]; “additive gas”; [0052],[0103]) configured to deliver an ammonia-based (165; Figure 1-”additive gas”, NH3 ; [0052],[0103],[0118]) delayering agent to the sample (105; Figure 1; [0096]) at least while the focused ion beam is being delivered to the sample (105; Figure 1; [0096]); wherein the pre-conditioned gas delivery system (150+165; Figure 1-”depositon gas”-[0049],[0102]; “additive gas”; [0052],[0103]) includes a carbon-based residual (150; Figure 1-”depositon gas”-[0049]-” benzene, naphthalene ...styrene.”; [0049]; 215; Figure 2-[0115]) in the gas delivery system (150+165; Figure 1-”depositon gas”-[0049],[0102]; “additive gas”; [0052],[0103]), wherein a portion of the carbon-based residual (150; Figure 1-”depositon gas”-[0049]-” benzene, naphthalene ...styrene.”; [0049]; 215; Figure 2-[0115]) is present at the sample (105; Figure 1; [0096]) during the etching (230; Figure 2; [0126]) of the sample (105; Figure 1; [0096]) with the ammonia-based (165; Figure 1-”additive gas”, NH3 ; [0052],[0103],[0118]) delayering agent, as claimed by claim 12. Bret at [0118] teaches that the above noted deposition gas and additive gas are delivered together for the deposition step 215; Figure 2 that is before etching step 230; Figure 2. As a result, the claimed “wherein a portion of the carbon-based residual (150; Figure 1-”depositon gas”-[0049]-” benzene, naphthalene ...styrene.”; [0049]; 215; Figure 2-[0115]) is present at the sample (105; Figure 1; [0096]) during the etching (230; Figure 2; [0126]) of the sample (105; Figure 1; [0096]) with the ammonia-based (165; Figure 1-”additive gas”, NH3 ; [0052],[0103],[0118]) delayering agent” is met. The above noted italicized claim text is considered intended use claim requirements for the pending apparatus claims. Further, it has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (Walter , 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409; MPEP 2106). Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto , 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); MPEP2115).
Bret further teaches:
The apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 12, wherein the gas delivery system (150+165; Figure 1-”depositon gas”-[0049],[0102]; “additive gas”; [0052],[0103]) is configured to provide a carbon-based conditioning agent (150; Figure 1-”depositon gas”-[0049]-” benzene, naphthalene ...styrene.”; [0049]; 215; Figure 2-[0115]) to at least a portion of the gas delivery system (150+165; Figure 1-”depositon gas”-[0049],[0102]; “additive gas”; [0052],[0103]) to leave the carbon-based residual (150; Figure 1-”depositon gas”-[0049]-” benzene, naphthalene ...styrene.”; [0049]; 215; Figure 2-[0115]) in the gas delivery system (150+165; Figure 1-”depositon gas”-[0049],[0102]; “additive gas”; [0052],[0103]), wherein the carbon-based residual (150; Figure 1-”depositon gas”-[0049]-” benzene, naphthalene ...styrene.”; [0049]; 215; Figure 2-[0115]) reduces a depth variation in the etching (230; Figure 2; [0126]) of the sample (105; Figure 1; [0096]) by the focused ion beam (127; Figure 1; “...Examples of alternative particle beams are ion beams”; [0096],[0112]), as claimed by claim 13. With respect to the claim requirement of “…wherein the carbon-based residual (150; Figure 1-”depositon gas”-[0049]-” benzene, naphthalene ...styrene.”; [0049]; 215; Figure 2-[0115]) reduces a depth variation in the etching (230; Figure 2; [0126]) of the sample (105; Figure 1; [0096]) by the focused ion beam (127; Figure 1; “...Examples of alternative particle beams are ion beams”; [0096],[0112])”, It has been held that if the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) MPEP 2112.01).
The apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 13, wherein the carbon-based conditioning agent (150; Figure 1-”depositon gas”-[0049]-” benzene, naphthalene ...styrene.”; [0049]; 215; Figure 2-[0115]) comprises a hydrocarbon, as claimed by claim 14
The apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 13, wherein the carbon-based conditioning agent (150; Figure 1-”depositon gas”-[0049]-” benzene, naphthalene ...styrene.”; [0049]; 215; Figure 2-[0115]) comprises a benzene ring, as claimed by claim 15
The apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 13, wherein the carbon-based conditioning agent (150; Figure 1-”depositon gas”-[0049]-” benzene, naphthalene ...styrene.”; [0049]; 215; Figure 2-[0115]) comprises naphthalene, as claimed by claim 16
The apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 13, wherein the carbon-based conditioning agent (150; Figure 1-”depositon gas”-[0049]-” benzene, naphthalene ...styrene.”; [0049]; 215; Figure 2-[0115]) consists essentially of benzene, naphthalene, biphenyl, phenanthrene, toluene, xylene, styrene, ethylbenzene, trimethylbenzene, tetramethylbenzene, pentamethylbenzene, hexamethylbenzene, n-propylbenzene, and/or cumene, as claimed by claim 17
The apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 12, wherein the ammonia-based (165; Figure 1-”additive gas”, NH3 ; [0052],[0103],[0118]) delayering agent comprises ammonium carbonate, ammonium bicarbonate, and/or anhydrous ammonia, used either by itself or in combination with water and carbon dioxide, as claimed by claim 18. Anhydrous ammonia is described in [0052] where there is no discussion of water vapor or any other gas mixture with ammonia.
The apparatus (Figure 1) of claim 12, further comprising a charged particle microscope imaging system (SEM; [0094],[0116]) configured to image the substrate after the etching (230; Figure 2; [0126]), and wherein the imaging system (SEM; [0094],[0116]) is configured to form a 3D image of the substrate from a plurality of image slices of the etched (230; Figure 2; [0126]) substrate, as claimed by claim 19
An apparatus (Figure 1), comprising: a computer (140; Figure 1; [0098]) processor (140; Figure 1; [0098]) and computer (140; Figure 1; [0098]) memory (Figure 2; [0098]), wherein the memory (Figure 2; [0098]) includes code (Figure 2; [0098]) that, when executed by the processor (140; Figure 1; [0098]), causes the processor (140; Figure 1; [0098]) to cause a focused ion beam system (127; Figure 1; “...Examples of alternative particle beams are ion beams”; [0096],[0112]) to:condition at least a portion of a gas delivery system (150+165; Figure 1-”depositon gas”-[0049],[0102]; “additive gas”; [0052],[0103]) of the focused ion beam system (127; Figure 1; “...Examples of alternative particle beams are ion beams”; [0096],[0112]) with a carbon-based conditioning agent (150; Figure 1-”depositon gas”-[0049]-” benzene, naphthalene ...styrene.”; [0049]; 215; Figure 2-[0115]) to provide a carbon-based residual (150; Figure 1-”depositon gas”-[0049]-” benzene, naphthalene ...styrene.”; [0049]; 215; Figure 2-[0115]); and etch (230; Figure 2; [0126]) a substrate with a focused ion beam (127; Figure 1; “...Examples of alternative particle beams are ion beams”; [0096],[0112]), in the presence of an ammonia-based (165; Figure 1-”additive gas”, NH3 ; [0052],[0103],[0118]) delayering agent provided by the gas delivery system (150+165; Figure 1-”depositon gas”-[0049],[0102]; “additive gas”; [0052],[0103]) and in the presence of the carbon-based residual (150; Figure 1-”depositon gas”-[0049]-” benzene, naphthalene ...styrene.”; [0049]; 215; Figure 2-[0115]), as claimed by claim 20
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. FIB etching apparatus of similar precursor application include US 20050072756 A1; US 20250095959 A1; US 20160343537 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Rudy Zervigon whose telephone number is (571) 272- 1442. The examiner can normally be reached on a Monday through Thursday schedule from 8am through 6pm EST. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Any Inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Chemical and Materials Engineering art unit receptionist at (571) 272-1700. If the examiner cannot be reached please contact the examiner's supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, at (571) 272- 1435.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Rudy Zervigon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights