DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 08/04/2026 have been entered as a result of the above RCE. Claims 1-11 and 13-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have not overcome, nor addressed, the outstanding objection to the specification. See NFOA0120
Applicant’s amendments have not overcome, nor addressed, the outstanding objection to the specification previously set forth in the Non-Final and Final Office Actions dated 01/20/2026 and 06/04/2026, respectively, the latter hereinafter indicated as FOA0604.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome some, but not all, of the objections previously set forth in FOA0604. See below for further discussion.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously set forth in FOA0604. However, Applicant’s amendment have resulted in an additional indefiniteness issue. See below for further discussion.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 11, and 17 have been considered but are moot because they pertain to limitations added by way of amendment that were not present at the time of FOA0604.
Nevertheless, for clarity of the record, Examiner will address relevant arguments, which follow the same reasoning as that in the Advisory Action dated 08/14/2026, hereinafter AA0814.
Applicant arguments largely follow those of the arguments of the Remarks filed 03/19/2026, aside from the additional focus on the newly added limitations to the independent claims. The similar portions of Applicant’s arguments that were previously addressed in FOA0604, are similarly addressed by Examiner’s response to arguments in FOA0604, as those specific arguments have not been specifically refuted. Applicant’s arguments regarding the proposed amended claim limitations are addressed herein.
The proposed amended independent claim limitations remove the functionality “wherein the actuator is configured to displace one of the first plate or the second plate such that the second openings are horizontally offset from the first openings along a vertical direction” from the actuator (i.e., the capabilities of the actuator are no longer limited). The proposed amended independent claim limitations place this functionality, rather, in “a computer system coupled to the actuator, the computer system having a non-transitory machine-readable medium having stored thereon instructions to perform a process including using the actuator to displace one of the first plate or the second plate such that the second openings are horizontally offset from the first openings along a vertical direction” (i.e., a computer system now contains the same functionality in some form of code/software).
Applicant argues that Casares does not disclose such a computer system, and that the claim is thus allowable over the prior art.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that the same functionality is required of the claims, but the device performing the functionality has been changed by the proposed amendment to a generic computer structure having generic control software thereon.
Examiner further notes that in the field of Casares, and in the field of the instant application, an ordinarily skilled artisan would likely have some form of advanced degree (e.g., Ph.D.) in a physical science/engineering, or equivalent experience, and thus have a relatively high level of ordinary skill and knowledge.
Accordingly, while Casares does not explicitly disclose such a computer system, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the disclosure of Casares to implicitly disclose some form of computing/processing device, having some form of software/code, in order to achieve the disclosed controllable displacement of the aperture plates relative to one another, as cited in FOA0604.
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the relative positioning (and thus actuation) required of the plates in Casares to be very precise, and thus, understand them to be controlled electronically. One of ordinary skill in the art would further understand, in reduction to practice, that such precise electronic control would necessarily involve a computer system having some form of software to perform the relative control. Furthermore, the computer system and instructions required by the amended limitations are recited at a high level of generality, indicating that a generic computer would be capable of performing such functionality, given proper instruction. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, given the structure and functionality explicitly disclosed by Casares, would understand that such an implicitly disclosed computer system to read on such limitations, as a typical actuator control software in such an application would be readily understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan as being capable of displacing the elements connected to the actuator. See also Tyminski, which discloses such structure having such capabilities.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not convincing.
See below for detailed discussion of amended claim limitations.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0066] recites “operation 193”, which should read ‘operation 1193’.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 11, 15, and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites “the collector”, however, the claim previous requires “a collector plate”; While Examiner believes the limitation is definite in context, consistent terminology should be used throughout the claims;
Claim 15 suffers from a similar issue to claim 11;
Claims 18 and 20 recite “wherein one or both of the first plate or the second plate being displaceable enables…”, however, ‘both of the first plate or the second plate’ does not make sense; Examiner suggests ‘wherein one or both of the first plate and the second plate being displaceable enables…’, as previously presented; Examiner notes that FOA0604 indicated an inconsistency between claim 17 and claims 18 and 20, but Examiner noted that the new limitations (at the time) of claim 17 were at issue not the limitations in claims 18 and 20, and in the present amendments, such limitations have been removed from claim 17, so no inconsistency issue remains to ameliorate.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “…wherein one or both of the first plate or the second plate are configured to be driven by an actuator that is…”, however, claim 17 requires ‘an actuator’ and is not clear if the subsequent recitation of “an actuator” in claim 20 is intended to require an additional actuator, or limit the form of the actuator required by claim 20. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…wherein one or both of the first plate or the second plate are configured to be driven by the actuator that is…’.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casares (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20090114818 A1), in view of Bateman (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20040227070 A1).
Examiner notes that Casares and Bateman are Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 02/07/2025.
Regarding claim 1, Casares teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a first plate with an array of first openings (Abstract; [0212]; [0216]; Examiner notes that any of the first, second, or third multi-aperture plates of Casares reads on this limitation),
a second plate with an array of second openings below the first plate (Abstract; [0212]; [0216]; Examiner notes that either the first or second multi-aperture plate of Casares reads on this limitation),
an actuator coupled to the first plate or the second plate ([0070]; [0081]; [0084]; [0087]; [0177]; [0252]); and
a third plate below the second plate (Abstract; [0212]; [0216]; [0252]; Examiner notes that the most downstream of the four aperture plates reads on this limitation),
Casares does not explicitly teach wherein the first plate is electrically conductive and wherein the second plate is electrically conductive and wherein the third plate is electrically conductive and a computer system coupled to the actuator, the computer system having a non-transitory machine-readable medium having stored thereon instructions to perform a process including using the actuator to displace one of the first plate or the second plate such that the second openings are horizontally offset from the first openings along a vertical direction.
However, while Casares discloses ([0067]) the first and second plates as being formed of semiconductor material, Casares also discloses coating the first and second plates with conductive materials ([0068]), which could be reasonably interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art to be functionally equivalent to the plates being electrically conductive themselves. In fact, Casares discusses such coatings as being particularly advantageous when a potential is applied to the multi-aperture plate.
Additionally, as discussed above, an ordinarily skilled artisan, presented with the disclosure of Casares (See [0070]; [0081]; [0084]; [0087]; [0177]; [0251]-[0254]; See also [0069]) directed toward the actuators and their functionality within the device would naturally understand the system to be computer operated, and thus implicitly disclose a computer system of some form having control software of some form thereon, as such a skilled artisan would recognize the precise control necessary to achieve the disclosed functionality as requiring some form of computer control, using some form of digital instruction. Furthermore, the cited portions of Casares explicitly disclose horizontal offset capability between plates via actuation using the actuator, and accordingly, the implicitly disclosed control computing structure would inherently have ‘instructions’ to perform ‘a process including using the actuator’ to displace one of the plates such that their respective openings are horizontally offset along a vertical direction.
In other words, while not explicitly disclosed by Casares, Casares implicitly discloses a computer system coupled to the actuator, the computer system having a non-transitory machine-readable medium having stored thereon instructions, and given such implicit computing structure having instructions thereon (e.g., generic control software), the functionality disclosed regarding actuation would inherently require instructions to perform a process including using the actuator to displace one of the first plate or the second plate such that the second openings are horizontally offset from the first openings along a vertical direction, in order to enable performing such functionality.
Bateman teaches wherein the first plate is electrically conductive and wherein the second plate is electrically conductive and wherein the third plate is electrically conductive (See Figs. 2-3, items 17a, 17b, 17c; [0146]; [0152]).
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 Casares to explicitly include wherein the first plate is electrically conductive and wherein the second plate is electrically conductive and wherein the third plate is electrically conductive, as taught by Bateman.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as the use of conductive materials being used for aperture plates is well-represented in the prior art in a manner that an ordinarily skilled artisan would be reasonably apprised thereof, and would know and understand how and why to apply such a material choice, such as allowing for further control of charging and potentials of the plates, which in turn allows for better control of the conditions of the particles that make up the particle beams passing therethrough.
For completeness: See also Tyminski, which discloses such computing structure having such plate actuation capabilities (e.g., [0087]-[0092]).
Regarding claim 2, Casares, in view of Bateman, teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Casares does not explicitly teach wherein the third plate is coupled to a charge collection circuit.
However, Casares teaches in [0102] that “Other methods of determining a total beam current directly or indirectly, such as measuring a charge building up on an particle-optical component in a system or the like, are also conceivable.”, indicating knowledge of such charge collection arrangements. Casares also discloses a detector arrangement in [0224]-[0225] and [0252], which could also reasonably be interpreted as reading on the third plate, as the detector is disclosed to include microchannel plate detectors.
Nevertheless, Bateman further teaches wherein the third plate is coupled to a charge collection circuit ([0143]; [0149]).
Regarding claim 3, Casares, in view of Bateman, teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Casares further teaches wherein the first plate can be actuated between a first position and a second position, wherein the first position allows for a first line to pass through the first plate and the second plate and intersect the third plate at a first angle, and wherein the second position allows for a second line to pass through the first plate and the second plate and intersect the third plate at a second angle ([0070]; [0081]; [0084]; [0087]; [0177]; [0252]; Examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim merely requires the capability to achieve such functionality, not the actual performance of the functions, as the claim pertains to an apparatus; The actuators of Casares are capable of actuation between arbitrary relative positions of each of the multi-aperture plates, which would inherently allow for first and second lines to pass through the two plates and intersect the downstream third plate at different angles).
Regarding claim 4, Casares, in view of Bateman, teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Casares further teaches wherein the first plate, the second plate, and the third plate are configured to be held at different voltages ([0067-[0068]; [0100]-[0109]; [0112]-[0123];l [0236]-[0250]; See also: Claim 29; Examiner notes that the first, second, and third plates being ‘configured to be held’ at different voltages merely requires that each of the plates are capable of being held at different voltages; The various plates of Casares are capable of being held at arbitrary voltages).
Regarding claim 5, Casares, in view of Bateman, teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Casares further teaches further comprising:
a second actuator, wherein the second actuator is coupled to the other one of the first plate or the second plate that is not coupled to the actuator, and wherein the actuator and the second actuator can displace the first plate and the second plate in different directions ([0070]; [0081]; [0084]; [0087]; [0177]; [0252]; Examiner notes that the capabilities claimed are satisfied by the disclosed actuators of Casares).
Regarding claim 6, Casares, in view of Bateman, teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Casares further teaches further comprising:
a fourth plate with third openings over the first plate, wherein the fourth plate is configured to be held at a different voltage than the first plate ([0074]-[0083]; [0122]; [0216]; [0251]; Examiner notes that ‘configured to be held’ is again interpreted as merely requiring the capability).
Regarding claim 7, Casares, in view of Bateman, teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Casares further teaches further comprising:
a fourth plate between the second plate and the third plate, wherein the fourth plate is configured to be held at a voltage different than the second plate and the third plate ([0084]-[0088]; [0109]-[0111]; [0177]-[0180]; [0252]; Examiner notes that ‘configured to be held’ is again interpreted as merely requiring the capability).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casares (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20090114818 A1), in view of Bateman (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20040227070 A1) and Tyminski (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20220293390 A1).
Examiner notes that Tyminski is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 02/07/2025.
Regarding claim 8, Casares, in view of Bateman, teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Casares does not explicitly teach wherein the actuator is an electrostatic actuator, a piezoelectric actuator, a thermally driven actuator, or a memory-alloy actuator.
However, typical actuation technology for multi-aperture plates is generally known, and one of ordinary skill in the art could readily apply such conventional actuation technology.
Nevertheless, Tyminski teaches wherein the actuator is an electrostatic actuator, a piezoelectric actuator, a thermally driven actuator, or a memory-alloy actuator ([0006]).
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 Casares to explicitly include wherein the actuator is an electrostatic actuator, a piezoelectric actuator, a thermally driven actuator, or a memory-alloy actuator, as taught by Tyminski.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use typical actuation technology for the disclosed actuators of Casares, which are not limited to any particular kind of actuator.
Claims 9-10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casares (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20090114818 A1), in view of Bateman (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20040227070 A1) and Brechtel (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20170356879 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Casares, in view of Bateman, teaches the apparatus of claim 7.
Casares does not explicitly teach wherein the actuator is a comb drive.
However, the general use of a comb drive as an actuator is well-represented in the prior art such that an ordinarily skilled artisan would be reasonably apprised of such technology.
Nevertheless, Brechtel teaches the use of a comb drive actuator ([0013]; [0032]-[0036]).
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 Casares to explicitly include wherein the actuator is a comb drive, as taught by Brechtel.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use typical actuation technology for the disclosed actuators of Casares.
Regarding claim 10, Casares, in view of Bateman, teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Casares does not explicitly teach wherein the second plate comprises spring arms.
However, the general use of springs to provide a centering bias coupled with a displacing actuator to controllably deform the springs to adjust the position of an object is well-represented in the prior art, and an ordinarily skilled artisan would be reasonably apprised of such technology.
Nevertheless, Brechtel teaches the use of a comb drive actuator and spring elements which could be reasonably interpreted as ‘arms’ to provide controlled displacement and a restoring force when the controlled displacement is removed ([0013]; [0032]-[0036]).
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 Casares to explicitly include the spring-actuator system of Brechtel to achieve wherein the second plate comprises spring arms.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use typical actuation technology for the disclosed actuators of Casares.
Claims 11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casares (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20090114818 A1), in view of Tyminski (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20220293390 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Casares teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a substrate (See Figs. 10; [0252], detector arrangement D, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to include a substrate); and
an actuator ([0070]; [0081]; [0084]; [0087]; [0177]; [0252]);
a sensor on the substrate (See Figs. 10; [0252], detector arrangement D), wherein the sensor comprises:
a collector plate ([0252], detector arrangement D has a plate morphology, and the detection elements being on the surface exposed to the beam(s) would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as reading on a collector plate forming a sensing element);
a first plate with first openings over the collector (See Figs. 9-11, items 613 or 614 or 619; [0251]-[0254]);
a second plate with second openings over the first plate (See Figs. 9-10, item 613 or 619; [0251]-[0254]); and
Casares does not explicitly teach a computer system coupled to the actuator, the computer system having a non-transitory machine-readable medium having stored thereon instructions to perform a process including using the actuator to displace one of the first plate or the second plate such that the second openings are horizontally offset from the first openings along a vertical direction.
As discussed above, an ordinarily skilled artisan, presented with the disclosure of Casares (See [0070]; [0081]; [0084]; [0087]; [0177]; [0251]-[0254]; See also [0069]) directed toward the actuators and their functionality within the device would naturally understand the system to be computer operated, and thus implicitly disclose a computer system of some form having control software of some form thereon, as such a skilled artisan would recognize the precise control necessary to achieve the disclosed functionality as requiring some form of computer control, using some form of digital instruction. Furthermore, the cited portions of Casares explicitly disclose horizontal offset capability between plates via actuation using the actuator, and accordingly, the implicitly disclosed control computing structure would inherently have ‘instructions’ to perform ‘a process including using the actuator’ to displace one of the plates such that their respective openings are horizontally offset along a vertical direction.
In other words, while not explicitly disclosed by Casares, Casares implicitly discloses a computer system coupled to the actuator, the computer system having a non-transitory machine-readable medium having stored thereon instructions, and given such implicit computing structure having instructions thereon (e.g., generic control software), the functionality disclosed regarding actuation would inherently require instructions to perform a process including using the actuator to displace one of the first plate or the second plate such that the second openings are horizontally offset from the first openings along a vertical direction, in order to enable performing such functionality.
Casares does not explicitly teach a single embodiment in which the sensor includes each of the collector plate, the first plate, and the second plate forming a part of the sensor on the substrate (i.e., a unitary sensing element), and rather discloses the sensor elements as being merely in close proximity. However, Casares also separately discloses embodiments in which the various aperture plates are joined by spacers in a similar manner to the embodiment of Applicant’s disclosure which supports the sensor including each of these elements on the substrate. Accordingly, Casares merely lacks disposing such joined plates on the detector arrangement.
Tyminski discloses the use of an aperture plate disposed on a sensing element, separated therefrom by an insulating spacer in order to sense charged particles (See Figs. 1, items 122, 124, and 120/126), which provide the instruction missing from Casares to dispose such an aperture plate arrangement on a sensing element via insulating spacers in the same way Casares provides insulating spacers between different aperture plates.
Accordingly, 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 Casares to include disposing the first and second plates on the substrate, to form a unitary sensor using the disclosed insulating spacers and aperture plates, as taught by Tyminski, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Doing so would further be obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan because the aperture plates of Casares form the same portion of the sensing arrangement as the first and second plates required by the claim, and merely lacked instruction to dispose such sensing elements on the substrate, which is provided by Tyminski, and facilitated by the similar use of insulating spacers by Tyminski and Casares. Doing so further represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to form a unitary sensing element from elements taught in the prior art to be in plural components functioning in the same manner.
For completeness: See also Tyminski, which discloses such computing structure having such plate actuation capabilities (e.g., [0087]-[0092]).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Casares in view of Tyminski teaches the apparatus of claim 11.
Casares further teaches wherein the second plate is configured to be displaceable in a plane substantially parallel to the top surface of the collector plate ([0070]; [0081]; [0084]; [0087]; [0177]; [0252]).
Regarding claim 14, Casares, in view of Tyminski, teaches the apparatus of claim 11.
Casares further teaches further comprising a third plate with third openings over the second plate (See Figs. 9-10, item 619; [0252]).
Regarding claim 15, Casares, in view of Tyminski, teaches the apparatus of claim 11.
Casares further teaches further comprising a third plate with third openings between the collector and the first plate (See Figs. 9-10, item 614, in the case in which 613 is interpreted as the first plate is 613 and the second is 619; [0251]-[0254]).
Regarding claim 16, Casares, in view of Tyminski, teaches the apparatus of claim 11.
Casares does not explicitly teach further comprising:
a plurality of second sensors on the substrate.
However, Casares discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of sensors.
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 Casares to include plural sensors since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Doing so would allow one to apply the techniques and apparatuses of Casares to plural locations on a substrate.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casares (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20090114818 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Casares teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a substrate (See Figs. 10; [0252], detector arrangement D, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to include a substrate);
an actuator ([0070]; [0081]; [0084]; [0087]; [0177]; [0252]);
a collector, wherein the collector is configured to measure a current induced by ions that collide with the collector ([0102]-[0103]; [0252], detector arrangement D a plate morphology, and the detection elements being on the surface exposed to the beam(s) would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as reading on a collector plate); and
an ion filter over the collector (See Figs. 9-10; [0252]), wherein the ion filter comprises:
a first plate with first openings (See Figs. 9-10, items 613, 614, or 619; [0252]);
a second plate with second openings over the first plate (See Figs. 9-10, items 619 or 613; [0252]); and
Casares does not explicitly teach a computer system coupled to the actuator, the computer system having a non-transitory machine-readable medium having stored thereon instructions to perform a process including using the actuator to displace one of the first plate or the second plate such that the second openings are horizontally offset from the first openings along a vertical direction.
As discussed above, an ordinarily skilled artisan, presented with the disclosure of Casares (See [0070]; [0081]; [0084]; [0087]; [0177]; [0251]-[0254]; See also [0069]) directed toward the actuators and their functionality within the device would naturally understand the system to be computer operated, and thus implicitly disclose a computer system of some form having control software of some form thereon, as such a skilled artisan would recognize the precise control necessary to achieve the disclosed functionality as requiring some form of computer control, using some form of digital instruction. Furthermore, the cited portions of Casares explicitly disclose horizontal offset capability between plates via actuation using the actuator, and accordingly, the implicitly disclosed control computing structure would inherently have ‘instructions’ to perform ‘a process including using the actuator’ to displace one of the plates such that their respective openings are horizontally offset along a vertical direction.
In other words, while not explicitly disclosed by Casares, Casares implicitly discloses a computer system coupled to the actuator, the computer system having a non-transitory machine-readable medium having stored thereon instructions, and given such implicit computing structure having instructions thereon (e.g., generic control software), the functionality disclosed regarding actuation would inherently require instructions to perform a process including using the actuator to displace one of the first plate or the second plate such that the second openings are horizontally offset from the first openings along a vertical direction, in order to enable performing such functionality.
Casares does not explicitly teach a plurality of sensors distributed across a surface of the substrate.
However, Casares discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of sensors.
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 Casares to include plural sensors since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Doing so would allow one to apply the techniques and apparatuses of Casares to plural locations on a substrate.
Regarding claim 18, Casares, as modified, teaches the apparatus of claim 17.
Casares further teaches wherein one or both of the first plate or the second plate being displaceable enables detection of ions traveling at different angles relative to the collector ([0070]; [0081]; [0084]; [0087]; [0177]; [0252]; Examiner notes that the two plates being displaceable relative to one another inherently ‘enables’ detection of ions traveling at different angles relative to the collector, under the BRI).
Regarding claim 19, Casares, as modified, teaches the apparatus of claim 17.
Casares further teaches further comprising:
an electron filter over the ion filter (See Figs. 9-10, item 619 or 620; [0252]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casares (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20090114818 A1), in view of Tyminski (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20220293390 A1).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Casares, as modified, teaches the apparatus of claim 17.
Casares further teaches wherein one or both of the first plate and the second plate are configured to be driven by an actuator ([0070]; [0081]; [0084]; [0087]; [0177]; [0252])
Casares does not explicitly teach an actuator that is an electrostatic actuator, a piezoelectric actuator, a thermally driven actuator, or a memory-alloy actuator (Emphasis added by Examiner).
However, typical actuation technology for multi-aperture plates is generally known, and one of ordinary skill in the art could readily apply such conventional actuation technology.
Nevertheless, Tyminski teaches an actuator that is an electrostatic actuator, a piezoelectric actuator, a thermally driven actuator, or a memory-alloy actuator ([0006]).
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 Casares to explicitly include an actuator that is an electrostatic actuator, a piezoelectric actuator, a thermally driven actuator, or a memory-alloy actuator, as taught by Tyminski.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use typical actuation technology for the disclosed actuators of Casares which are not limited to any particular kind of actuator.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kurose (US 20150311077 A1);
Zehavi (US 20170072466 A1);
Zhang (US 20190043691 A1);
Frosien (US 20190066972 A1);
Ren’191 (US 20200321191 A1);
Ren’207 (US 20200381207 A1);
Gu (US 20220319797 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 H 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights