DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 24 February 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no serious search burden has been established on examining all of the claims in a single application. This is not found persuasive because Group I and Group II require a search in different classifications. Specifically, Group I requires search in H01J37/26 focused on physical structure of electron microscope, while Group II requires search in H01J37/153 focused on electron-optical arrangements for aberration correction. Searching an additional classification for a separate invention is a serious search burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 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.
5. Claim 1 recites plurality of magnetic polepieces, each comprising a first and second coil. Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 recite "said first coil and said second coil." It is unclear whether "said first coil and said second coil" of claims 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 are reference to all the first and second coils of claim 1, or just one set of first and second coils. Claim 4 depending on claim 2 is also rejected. Claims 7-8 depending on claim 1 are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claims 1, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nakano (US 20070181806).
8. Regarding claim 1:
Nakano disclosed an electron microscope ([0002] teaches a scanning electron microscope) comprising:
an electron optical system having a built-in aberration corrector ([0004]-[0005] teaches an aberration corrector in the charged particle optical apparatus represented by an electron microscope) equipped with multipole elements each for producing a multipolar field ([0038] fig. 2 teaches the electromagnetic multipole lens. Four poles are provided to generate the quadrupole field); each of said multipole elements including a plurality of magnetic polepieces ([0038] teaches the multipole lens of fig. 2 is structured with plural poles from 39 to 50 arranged in the circular format), each of the magnetic polepieces comprising a magnetic core ([0040] teaches that the end part of pole forms a magnetic pole 63. A structuring material of coil 64 is a conductive wire which is insulated by a holding member 66 from the core part of the pole),
a first coil wound around the core, and a second coil wound around the core ([0040] teaches that an excitation coil 64 is wound around the region sandwiched by a structuring part of magnetic pole 63 and the magnetic path ring and plural coils are arranged. A structuring material of coil 64 is a conductive wire which is insulated by a holding member 66 from the core part of the pole. The central structure inside the wound coil corresponds to the core); wherein said first coil and said second coil produce a first multipolar field and a second multipolar field, respectively, when energized ([0058] teaches coils are used to generate and superpose different kinds of magnetic fields. Coil 64c for dipole, coil 64d for dipole); and wherein the first and second multipolar fields are identical in terms of symmetry ([0058] teaches coil 64c for dipole, coil 64d for dipole. Two dipole fields share the same multipole symmetry).
9. Regarding claim 7:
Nakano discloses the electron microscope as set forth in claim 1. Nakano further discloses that wherein said electron optical system comprises illumination optics for irradiating a sample with an electron beam ([0033] teaches that the electron beam emitted from an electron source 1 is projected to the surface of a specimen 8), and wherein said aberration corrector is incorporated in the illumination optics (claim 1 teaches that the irradiation optical system includes an aberration corrector).
10. Regarding claim 9:
Nakano discloses a multipole element ([0038] fig. 2 teaches the electromagnetic multipole lens) comprising
a plurality of magnetic polepieces ([0038] teaches the multipole lens of fig. 2 is structured with plural poles from 39 to 50 arranged in the circular format) for producing a multipolar field ([0038] teaches that four poles are provided to generate the quadrupole field);
wherein each of the magnetic polepieces comprises a magnetic core ([0040] teaches that the end part of pole forms a magnetic pole 63. A structuring material of coil 64 is a conductive wire which is insulated by a holding member 66 from the core part of the pole),
a first coil wound around the core, and a second coil wound around the core ([0040] teaches that an excitation coil 64 is wound around the region sandwiched by a structuring part of magnetic pole 63 and the magnetic path ring and plural coils are arranged. A structuring material of coil 64 is a conductive wire which is insulated by a holding member 66 from the core part of the pole. The central structure inside the wound coil corresponds to the core); and wherein the first and second coils produce a first multipolar field and a second multipolar field, respectively, when energized ([0058] teaches coils are used to generate and superpose different kinds of magnetic fields. Coil 64c for dipole, coil 64d for dipole), the first and second multipolar fields being identical in terms of symmetry ([0058] teaches coil 64c for dipole, coil 64d for dipole. Two dipole fields share the same multipole symmetry).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
12. 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.
13. Claims 2-6, 8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano in view of van der Stam, Michiel, et al. "A New Aberration-Corrected Transmission Electron Microscope for a New Era." FEI Company, 2005. [hereinafter referred to as Stam].
14. Regarding claim 2:
Nakano discloses the electron microscope as set forth in claim 1. Nakano further discloses a controller for controlling said electron optical system ([0047] teaches an electronic optical system control unit 30), wherein the controller makes a switch ([0037] teaches that the power supply 26 controlled by the control unit 30 is modified to have a switching function to switch ON and OFF the supply of voltage).
Nakano fails to disclose making a switch between an inoperative mode in which magnetic fields produced respectively by said first coil and said second coil are oriented in opposite senses and the multipole elements are inhibited from producing multipolar fields and an operative mode in which the magnetic fields produced respectively by said first coil and said second coil are oriented in the same sense such that the multipole elements produce multipolar fields.
However, Stam discloses making a switch between (pg. 10 teaches changing the optical conditions of the microscope) an inoperative mode in which magnetic fields produced respectively by said first coil and said second coil are oriented in opposite senses and the multipole elements are inhibited from producing multipolar fields (pg. 10 teaches that even the low-mag range (typically only possible by switching the objective lens off) can be achieved by having the two coils excited at the same strength in opposite sign) and an operative mode in which the magnetic fields produced respectively by said first coil and said second coil are oriented in the same sense such that the multipole elements produce multipolar fields (pg. 10 teaches that the magnetic field that is generated by the lens is proportional to the sum of the currents flowing through the individual coils (
I
1
N
+
I
2
N
). The additive property demonstrates the operative mode, where the currents are working together in the same sense to produce the required magnetic field).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakano in view of Stam to include making a switch between an inoperative mode in which magnetic fields produced respectively by said first coil and said second coil are oriented in opposite senses and the multipole elements are inhibited from producing multipolar fields and an operative mode in which the magnetic fields produced respectively by said first coil and said second coil are oriented in the same sense such that the multipole elements produce multipolar fields. Such modification would allow for constant power dissipation and stability with flexibility in changing the optical conditions of the microscope without affecting the thermal equilibrium (as taught in Stam pg. 10).
15. Regarding claim 3:
Nakano in view of Stam discloses the electron microscope as set forth in claim 2. Nakano further discloses that wherein said controller controls an energization current (In addition, the voltage source/current source in this embodiment is controlled with a compute 34 such as a
personal computer via a controller 30) supplied to said first coil and an energization current supplied to said second coil ([0035] teaches that the power supply 26 is structured with plural power supplies in accordance with the number of multipole fields formed by the relevant multipole lens. [0058] teaches coils are used to generate and superpose different kinds of magnetic fields. Coil 64c for dipole, coil 64d for dipole).
Nakano fails to disclose that a sum of electric power consumed by the first coil and electric power consumed by the second coil in said inoperative mode is equal to a sum of electric power consumed by the first coil and electric power consumed by the second coil in said operative mode.
However, Stam discloses that a sum of electric power consumed by the first coil and electric power consumed by the second coil in said inoperative mode (pg. 10 teaches that even the low-mag range can be achieved by having the two coils excited at the same strength in opposite sign) is equal to a sum of electric power consumed by the first coil and electric power consumed by the second coil in said operative mode (pg. 10 teaches that the power dissipation of the lens, is proportional to the sum of the power of the individual currents
(
I
1
2
R
+
I
2
2
R
)
. In combination with a dual bipolar power supply, this yields the possibility to vary the magnetic field over a large negative and positive range while the power dissipation of the lens stays completely constant).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakano in view of Stam to include that a sum of electric power consumed by the first coil and electric power consumed by the second coil in said inoperative mode is equal to a sum of electric power consumed by the first coil and electric power consumed by the second coil in said operative mode. Such modification would allow for constant power dissipation and stability with flexibility in changing the optical conditions of the microscope without affecting the thermal equilibrium (as taught in Stam pg. 10).
16. Regarding claim 4:
Nakano in view of Stam discloses the electron microscope as set forth in claim 2. Nakano further discloses that wherein said controller makes a switch ([0037] teaches that the power supply 26 controlled by the control unit 30 is modified to have a switching function to switch ON and OFF the supply of voltage).
Nakano fails to disclose making a switch between a first optical mode in which aberrations are not corrected by said aberration corrector and a second optical mode in which the aberrations are corrected by the aberration corrector, and wherein the controller switches the multipole elements from said inoperative mode to said operative mode when said electron optical system is switched from the first optical mode to the second optical mode.
However, Stam discloses making a switch (pg. 10 teaches changing the optical conditions of the microscope) between a first optical mode in which aberrations are not corrected (pg. 10 teaches that even the low-mag range can be achieved by having the two coils excited at the same strength in opposite sign. Such situation corresponds to the first optical mode) by said aberration corrector (pg. 10 teaches the aberration corrector) and a second optical mode in which the aberrations are corrected by the aberration corrector (pg.1 teaches that the aberrations of the two components are simply added together, so the total Cs of the two modules can be tuned to various values. Pg. 11 teaches that the first probe-corrected system was operational), and wherein the controller switches the multipole elements from said inoperative mode to said operative mode when said electron optical system is switched from the first optical mode to the second optical mode (pg. 10 teaches that a constant power solution for all major lenses of the column has been designed. In combination with a dual bipolar power supply, this yields the possibility to vary the magnetic field. The power supply controls the currents and corresponds to the controller. Such variation of magnetic field corresponds to the switches from the inoperative mode to operative mode when the system is switched from the first optical mode to the second optical mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakano in view of Stam to include making a switch between a first optical mode in which aberrations are not corrected by said aberration corrector and a second optical mode in which the aberrations are corrected by the aberration corrector, and wherein the controller switches the multipole elements from said inoperative mode to said operative mode when said electron optical system is switched from the first optical mode to the second optical mode. Such modification would allow for constant power dissipation and stability with flexibility in changing the optical conditions of the microscope without affecting the thermal equilibrium (as taught in Stam pg. 10).
17. Regarding claim 5:
Nakano discloses the electron microscope as set forth in claim 1. Nakano further discloses a controller ([0047] teaches an electronic optical system control unit 30) for controlling said electron optical system ([0036] teaches that the voltage source/current source for the charged particle optical apparatus is controlled by the controller 30).
Nakano fails to disclose that wherein the controller varies a ratio of an energization current supplied to said second coil to an energization current supplied to said first coil, thereby varying a strength of each of the multipolar fields produced by said multipole elements from a first strength to a second strength different from the first strength.
However, Stam discloses that wherein the controller varies a ratio of an energization current supplied to said second coil to an energization current supplied to said first coil, thereby varying a strength of each of the multipolar fields produced by said multipole elements from a first strength to a second strength different from the first strength (pg. 10 teaches that a constant power solution for all major lenses of the column has been designed. In combination with a dual bipolar power supply, this yields the possibility to vary the magnetic field. As shown on pg. 10 fig. 4 the graph plots currents
I
1
and
I
2
as ellipse. The ratio between the two currents as shown is a constantly varying fraction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakano in view of Stam to include that wherein the controller varies a ratio of an energization current supplied to said second coil to an energization current supplied to said first coil, thereby varying a strength of each of the multipolar fields produced by said multipole elements from a first strength to a second strength different from the first strength. Such modification would allow for constant power dissipation and stability with flexibility in changing the optical conditions of the microscope without affecting the thermal equilibrium (as taught in Stam pg. 10).
18. Regarding claim 6:
Nakano in view of Stam discloses the electron microscope as set forth in claim 5. Nakano fails to disclose that wherein said controller controls the energization currents supplied respectively to said first coil and said second coil such that a sum of electric power consumed by the first coil and electric power consumed by the second coil when said multipole elements produce multipolar fields of said first strength is equal to a sum of electric power consumed by the first coil and electric power consumed by the second coil when said multipole elements produce multipolar fields of said second strength.
However, Stam discloses that wherein said controller controls the energization currents supplied respectively to said first coil and said second coil such that a sum of electric power consumed by the first coil and electric power consumed by the second coil (pg. 10 teaches that the magnetic field that is generated by the lens is proportional to the sum of the currents flowing through the individual coils (
I
1
N
+
I
2
N
)) when said multipole elements produce multipolar fields of said first strength is equal to a sum of electric power consumed by the first coil and electric power consumed by the second coil when said multipole elements produce multipolar fields of said second strength (pg. 10 teaches that the power dissipation of the lens, is proportional to the sum of the power of the individual currents
(
I
1
2
R
+
I
2
2
R
)
. In combination with a dual bipolar power supply, this yields the possibility to vary the magnetic field over a large negative and positive range while the power dissipation of the lens stays completely constant).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakano in view of Stam to include that wherein said controller controls the energization currents supplied respectively to said first coil and said second coil such that a sum of electric power consumed by the first coil and electric power consumed by the second coil when said multipole elements produce multipolar fields of said first strength is equal to a sum of electric power consumed by the first coil and electric power consumed by the second coil when said multipole elements produce multipolar fields of said second strength. Such modification would allow for constant power dissipation and stability with flexibility in changing the optical conditions of the microscope without affecting the thermal equilibrium (as taught in Stam pg. 10).
19. Regarding claim 8:
Nakano discloses the electron microscope as set forth in claim 1. Nakano further discloses that wherein said electron optical system comprises imaging optics (claim 1 teaches a scanning charged particle optical microscope comprising a detecting optical system for detecting secondary charged particle generated from said specimen with irradiation of said charged particle beam)
Nakano fails to disclose imaging an electron beam transmitted through a sample and wherein said aberration corrector is incorporated in the imaging optics.
However, Stam discloses imaging an electron beam transmitted through a sample (pg. 9 teaches transmission electron microscopes. By definition, TEM operates by transmitting an electron beam through a sample) and wherein said aberration corrector is incorporated in the imaging optics (pg. 9 teaches that the Cs correctors were developed for the new TEM column. Since the corrector is built into the column to compensate for the opposite effect in the objective lens, the corrector is incorporated in the imaging optics. Pg. 9 also teaches that the point resolution of transmission electron microscopes is limited by the aberration of the imaging lens, and that the correction of the spherical aberration (Cs) is possible by using correctors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakano in view of Stam to include imaging an electron beam transmitted through a sample and wherein said aberration corrector is incorporated in the imaging optics. Such modification would allow for significantly improved resolution in TEM and STEM (as taught in Stam pg. 9).
20. Regarding claim 10:
Nakano discloses the multipole element as set forth in claim 9. Nakano fails to disclose that wherein the multipole element has an inoperative mode in which magnetic fields produced respectively by said first and second coils are oriented in opposite senses and no multipolar field is produced and an operative mode in which the magnetic fields produced respectively by said first and second coils are oriented in the same sense and a multipolar field is produced.
However, Stam discloses that wherein the multipole element (pg. 10 teaches using multipole optical elements) has an inoperative mode in which magnetic fields produced respectively by said first and second coils are oriented in opposite senses and no multipolar field is produced (pg. 10 teaches that even the low-mag range (typically only possible by switching the objective lens off) can be achieved by having the two coils excited at the same strength in opposite sign) and an operative mode in which the magnetic fields produced respectively by said first and second coils are oriented in the same sense and a multipolar field is produced (pg. 10 teaches that the magnetic field that is generated by the lens is proportional to the sum of the currents flowing through the individual coils (
I
1
N
+
I
2
N
). The additive property demonstrates the operative mode, where the currents are working together in the same sense to produce the required magnetic field).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakano in view of Stam to include that wherein the multipole element has an inoperative mode in which magnetic fields produced respectively by said first and second coils are oriented in opposite senses and no multipolar field is produced and an operative mode in which the magnetic fields produced respectively by said first and second coils are oriented in the same sense and a multipolar field is produced. Such modification would allow for constant power dissipation and stability with flexibility in changing the optical conditions of the microscope without affecting the thermal equilibrium (as taught in Stam pg. 10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY LI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5043. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-4:30pm. 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.
/LARRY LI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881