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 .
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: in independent claim 1, the claim reads “…configuring the lens element to operate as a mirror, reflecting the CPB to the detector to generate calibration data [emphasis added] and determining…”. There is no linkage as to how merely reflecting charged particles-as a beam or otherwise-to a detector would somehow generate calibration data. It is likewise unclear what form (position, timing, current, etc.) this calibration data would take. As none of claims 2-13 clarify this issue, these claims must likewise be rejected under 35 USC 112 second paragraph.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: “…receiving at a detector the plurality of charged particles reflecting from the charged particle mirror to produce calibration data [emphasis added]…”. There is no linkage as to how merely reflecting charged particles-as a beam or otherwise-to a detector would somehow generate calibration data. It is likewise unclear what form (position, timing, current, etc.) this calibration data would take. As none of claims 13-20 clarify this issue, these claims must likewise be rejected under 35 USC 112 second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-9, 13-15 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Slot et al. (EPO 4009349 A1, from hereinafter “slot”)
In regards to claims 1 and 14, Slot teaches a charged particle beam system and method of operating said system comprising a source configured to produce a CPB comprising a plurality of charged particles (see, i.e., abstract), at least one lens element formed from a plurality of electrodes, wherein the lens element is configured to operate as a mirror based on a voltage across at least one of a plurality of electrodes (paragraphs 0124-0127 discusses using lenses a mirrors), a detector for generating calibration data from the received signal (paragraphs 0124-0127) and a controller wherein the calibration characteristics of the CPB system are determined by configuring the lens element to operate as mirror (paragraphs 0124-0127), reflecting the CPB to the detector to generate the calibration data (paragraphs 0124-0127) and determining, using the controller, an alignment of the CPB system based on the calibration data (under the “SUMMARY” section, paragraph 0008).
In regards to claim 2, Slot teaches that the controller is configured to recalibrate the CPB microscope based on the calibration data from the detector (abstract, paragraphs 0008 and 0124-0127).
In regards to claims 3 and 18, Slot teaches that the calibration characteristics are generated periodically based on time (paragraph 0008).
In regards to claim 4, Slot teaches that the controller is configured to determine the alignment of the CPB system by comparing the calibration characteristics to known calibration data (paragraphs 0124-0127).
In regards to claims 5, 15 and 17, Slot teaches that the at least one lens comprises an upper electrode, a middle electrode, and a lower electrode (see FIGS. 4, 9-12 and 18-20 that illustrate various electrode configurations). Slot likewise teaches that it is the middle electrode acts as the charged particle mirror after applying a voltage (paragraphs 0124-0127).
In regards to claim 8, Slot teaches charge plates operable to control a path of the CPB (see text associated with FIG. 3, paragraphs 0037-0043).
In regards to claim 9, Slot teaches that the alignment of the CPB system is adjusted by altering operation of the charge plates using the controller (paragraphs 0037-0043).
In regards to claim 13, Slot teaches that the voltage has the same polarity as a charge of the plurality of charged particles (FIGS. 8-10 illustrate, also see associated text).
In regards to claim 19, Slot teaches that the detector comprises charged particle receptors in a CPB microscope (see, i.e., abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 2023143858 A1 and USPgPub 20220084780.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE M IPPOLITO whose telephone number is (571)270-7449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00am-4:00pm Mountain Time.
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.
/NICOLE M IPPOLITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881