DETAILED ACTION
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 1-3, 5-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Owen et al. (WO 2014/028488, provided from IDS filed 12/21/2023, hereinafter Owen)
Regarding claim 1, Boughorbel discloses a method of mapping compositional variation within a specimen (a method of automatically examining a sample using a charged particle microscope, see paragraph [0001]) comprising:
acquiring an electron backscatter image of the surface of the specimen using a first set of electron beam parameters (acquiring an “image” of at least part of the sample based on detection of backscatter electrons BSEs, see paragraph [00012]);
identifying, from the electron backscatter image, a plurality of locations of areas or points on the specimen to be analyzed by EDS (by consulting previously obtained data, a log is kept of old BSE data and the corresponding EDX (e.g. EDS) data, more particularly, a table is drawn up of the electron brightness at the brightest position in a BSE image vs optimal input beam parameter for EDX analysis of that same position, see paragraph [00012]);
acquiring an EDS spectrum from each of the identified locations or points using a second set of electron beam parameters that are different than the first set of electron beam parameters (a table is drawn up of the electron brightness at the brightest position in a BSE image vs optimal input beam parameter for EDX analysis of that same position, see paragraph [00012]); and
generating a map of compositional variation across the specimen from the plurality of EDS spectra (using the calculated input beam parameter value in acquiring the matrix of x-ray spectra for the set S, see paragraph [00010]).
Regarding claim 2, Owen discloses the first set of electron beam parameters is chosen to optimize sharpness and spatial resolution of the electron backscatter image (by consulting previously obtained data, a log is kept of old BSE data and the corresponding EDX (e.g. EDS) data, more particularly, a table is drawn up of the electron brightness at the brightest position in a BSE image vs optimal input beam parameter for EDX analysis of that same position, see paragraph [00012]); and
the second set of electron beam parameters is chosen to realize a desired compositional resolution (a table is drawn up of the electron brightness at the brightest position in a BSE image vs optimal input beam parameter for EDX analysis of that same position, see paragraph [00012]).
Regarding claim 3, Owen discloses the identifying of the plurality of locations or areas includes automatically identifying either particle boundaries or grain boundaries by digital image analysis (a table is drawn up of the electron brightness at the brightest position in a BSE image vs optimal input beam parameter for EDX analysis of that same position. The data such a table may be rendered in a form that may facilitate automated reference thereto, see paragraph [00012]).
Regarding claim 5, Owen discloses an electron microscope system (a charged particle microscope 400, is a SEM, see paragraph [00021]) comprising:
an electron source and an electron optical column (particle optical column 402 comprises an electron source 412, see paragraph [00022]);
a sample stage within a vacuum chamber for supporting a specimen of a sample (vacuum chamber 406 comprises a sample holder/stage 408 for holding a sample 410, see paragraph [00021]);
a first detector for detecting electrons that are backscattered from the specimen upon impingement of the electron beam onto the specimen (second detector 100 for detecting backscatter/secondary electrons, see paragraph [00022]);
a second detector for detecting x-rays emitted from the specimen upon impingement of the electron beam onto the specimen (first detector 420 for detecting a flux of x-rays from the sample 410 in response to irradiation by the beam, see paragraph [00022]); and
one or more computer processors comprising executable instructions which, when executed by the one or more computer processors (computer processing apparatus 424, see paragraph [00022]), actuate the one or more computer processors to:
cause the first detector to acquire an electron backscatter image of the surface of the specimen using a first set of electron beam parameters (computer processing apparatus 424 controls detector 100, see paragraph [00022]; by consulting previously obtained data, a log is kept of old BSE data and the corresponding EDX (e.g. EDS) data, more particularly, a table is drawn up of the electron brightness at the brightest position in a BSE image vs optimal input beam parameter for EDX analysis of that same position, see paragraph [00012]);
cause the second detector to acquire an EDS spectrum from each of a plurality of locations or points on the specimen surface that are identified from the electron backscatter image, wherein the acquiring of the plurality of EDS spectra uses a second set of electron beam parameters that are different than the first set of electron beam parameters (computer processing apparatus 424 controls detector 420, see paragraph [00022]; a table is drawn up of the electron brightness at the brightest position in a BSE image vs optimal input beam parameter for EDX analysis of that same position, see paragraph [00012]); and
generate a map of compositional variation across the specimen from the plurality of EDS spectra (using the calculated input beam parameter value in acquiring the matrix of x-ray spectra for the set S, see paragraph [00010]).
Regarding claim 6, Owen discloses the one or more computer processors cause the electron source and electron optical column to set the first set of electron beam parameters to values that optimize sharpness and spatial resolution of the electron backscatter image (by consulting previously obtained data, a log is kept of old BSE data and the corresponding EDX (e.g. EDS) data, more particularly, a table is drawn up of the electron brightness at the brightest position in a BSE image vs optimal input beam parameter for EDX analysis of that same position, see paragraph [00012]); and
cause the electron source and the electron optical column to set the second set of electron beam parameters to values that realize a desired compositional resolution (a table is drawn up of the electron brightness at the brightest position in a BSE image vs optimal input beam parameter for EDX analysis of that same position, see paragraph [00012]).
Regarding claim 7, Owen discloses the one or more processors identifies either particle boundaries or grain boundaries within the specimen by digital image analysis of the electron backscatter image (a table is drawn up of the electron brightness at the brightest position in a BSE image vs optimal input beam parameter for EDX analysis of that same position. The data such a table may be rendered in a form that may facilitate automated reference thereto, see paragraph [00012]).
Regarding claim 9, Owen discloses one or more computer readable media having defined therein executable instructions which (computer processing apparatus 424, see paragraph [00022]), when executed by one or more computer processors, actuate the one or more computer processors to:
cause a first detector of an electron microscope system to acquire an electron backscatter image of the surface of a specimen using a first set of electron beam parameters (computer processing apparatus 424 controls detector 100, see paragraph [00022]; second detector 100 for detecting backscatter/secondary electrons from a sample 410, see paragraph [00022]; by consulting previously obtained data, a log is kept of old BSE data and the corresponding EDX (e.g. EDS) data, more particularly, a table is drawn up of the electron brightness at the brightest position in a BSE image vs optimal input beam parameter for EDX analysis of that same position, see paragraph [00012]);
identify, from the electron backscatter image, a plurality of locations of areas or points on the specimen to be subsequently analyzed by the electron microscopy system using EDS (a table is drawn up of the electron brightness at the brightest position in a BSE image vs optimal input beam parameter for EDX analysis of that same position. The data such a table may be rendered in a form that may facilitate automated reference thereto, see paragraph [00012]);
cause a second detector of the electron microscope system to acquire an EDS spectrum from each of the identified locations or points using a second set of electron beam parameters that are different than the first set of electron beam parameters (computer processing apparatus 424 controls detector 420, see paragraph [00022]; a table is drawn up of the electron brightness at the brightest position in a BSE image vs optimal input beam parameter for EDX analysis of that same position, see paragraph [00012]); and
generate a map of compositional variation across the specimen from the plurality of EDS spectra (using the calculated input beam parameter value in acquiring the matrix of x-ray spectra for the set S, see paragraph [00010]).
Regarding claim 10, Owen discloses the one or more computer processors causes an electron source and electron optical column of the electron microscope to set the first set of electron beam parameters to values that optimize sharpness and spatial resolution of the electron backscatter image (computer processing apparatus 424 controls beam column, see paragraph [00022]; by consulting previously obtained data, a log is kept of old BSE data and the corresponding EDX (e.g. EDS) data, more particularly, a table is drawn up of the electron brightness at the brightest position in a BSE image vs optimal input beam parameter for EDX analysis of that same position, see paragraph [00012]); and
causes the electron source and the electron optical column to set the second set of electron beam parameters to values that achieve sufficient EDS signal intensity, from each identified location or points, necessary to realize a desired compositional resolution in a minimum amount of time (a table is drawn up of the electron brightness at the brightest position in a BSE image vs optimal input beam parameter for EDX analysis of that same position, see paragraph [00012]).
Regarding claim 11, Owen discloses the one or more computer processors identifies either particle boundaries or grain boundaries within the specimen by digital image analysis of the electron backscatter image (a table is drawn up of the electron brightness at the brightest position in a BSE image vs optimal input beam parameter for EDX analysis of that same position. The data such a table may be rendered in a form that may facilitate automated reference thereto, see paragraph [00012]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owen.
Regarding claim 4, Owen discloses the first set of electron beam parameters includes the use of an electron beam acceleration voltage (using beam current value In to scan locations in the set S, see paragraph [00011]); and
the second set of electron beam parameter (if no significant pile up behavior is observed, then adjusting In to a higher value In+1, see paragraph [00011]).
Owen discloses the first beam parameter is set at a lower voltage (pre-scan would tend relatively noisy, but would be sufficient to determine whether the beam parameters used during the scan needed to be adjusted so as to achieve a more optimal result, see paragraph [00012]). Owen does not explicitly disclose the first set of electron beam parameters is less than or equal to 2 keV and the second beam parameter includes the electron beam acceleration voltage within the range of 20-30 keV. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the beam parameters for optimization as discussed by Owen, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 8, Owen discloses the one or more computer processors sets an electron beam acceleration voltage of the first set of electron beam parameters (computer processing apparatus 424 controls beam column, see paragraph [00022]; sets beam current value In to scan locations in the set S, see paragraph [00011]); and
sets an electron beam acceleration voltage of the second set of electron beam parameters (if no significant pile up behavior is observed, then adjusting In to a higher value In+1, see paragraph [00011]).
Owen discloses the first beam parameter is set at a lower voltage (pre-scan would tend relatively noisy, but would be sufficient to determine whether the beam parameters used during the scan needed to be adjusted so as to achieve a more optimal result, see paragraph [00012]). Owen does not explicitly disclose the first set of electron beam parameters is less than or equal to 2 keV and the second beam parameter includes the electron beam acceleration voltage within the range of 20-30 keV. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the beam parameters for optimization as discussed by Owen, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 12, Owen discloses the one or more computer processors sets an electron beam acceleration voltage of the first set of electron beam parameters (computer processing apparatus 424 controls beam column, see paragraph [00022]; sets beam current value In to scan locations in the set S, see paragraph [00011]); and
sets an electron beam acceleration voltage of the second set of electron beam parameters (if no significant pile up behavior is observed, then adjusting In to a higher value In+1, see paragraph [00011]).
Owen discloses the first beam parameter is set at a lower voltage (pre-scan would tend relatively noisy, but would be sufficient to determine whether the beam parameters used during the scan needed to be adjusted so as to achieve a more optimal result, see paragraph [00012]). Owen does not explicitly disclose the first set of electron beam parameters is less than or equal to 2 keV and the second beam parameter includes the electron beam acceleration voltage within the range of 20-30 keV. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the beam parameters for optimization as discussed by Owen, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANWAY CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at (571) 272-2328. 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.
Hanway Chang
/HC/ Examiner, Art Unit 2878
/GEORGIA Y EPPS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2878