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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The 102 (a)(1) rejections of record are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment.
Regarding the 103 rejections:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2-3 in view of Parsoneault and claims 2, 4-5 in view of Hashish have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3-5, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0353151 A1 [hereinafter Kaneko] in view of US6172847B1 [hereinafter Sakatani].
Regarding Claim 1:
Kaneko teaches a sample holder used for a sample processing apparatus that applies a charged particle beam to a sample to process the sample (Abstract: a sample stage used in a charged particle beam irradiation apparatus), the sample holder comprising:
a holder base (Fig. 3- stage base 17) thermally connected to a cooling source (paras. [0025, 0036]: a stage base 17 is submerged in the ionic liquid 12, which is used as a cooling medium for cooling the sample);
PNG
media_image1.png
743
860
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a rotating body (see annotated Fig. 3 above) rotatably supported on the holder base to hold the sample (Fig. 3, paras. [0025, 0036]: the rotating body at least includes the sample stage 5 holding the sample 4, the lower part of the sample stage including the universal joint 11. The rotating body is supported by the stage base 17, “the entire sample stage 5 was rotated using a universal joint 11 arranged in the lower part of the sample stage 5”); and
a drive unit (Fig. 3- motor 9) that rotates the rotating body, and
the rotating body having a sliding surface that comes into slidable surface contact with the holder base (the sample stage 5 rotates using universal ball joint 11 while the sample stage is supported on stage base 17, where a universal ball joint would necessarily include contacting surfaces that slide/rotate relative to each other to permit the supported stage to rotate).
However, Kaneko does not expressly teach that a magnet that generates a magnetic force to press the sliding surface of the rotating body against the holder base, thereby bringing the sliding surface into close contact with the holder base.
PNG
media_image2.png
394
813
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sakatani teaches a rotational assembly 10 (“rotating body”) includes a hub 40 and a shaft 1. The rotational assembly 10 is rotatably supported by a support assembly 42 including a base 7 (“holder base”), and the end face of shaft 1 forms a thrust bearing/sliding surface that contacts trust plate 2 fixed to base 7 (Figs. 3-4, 3: 3-12).
Specifically, Sakatani teaches a magnet that generates a magnetic force to press the sliding surface of the rotating body against the holder base, thereby bringing the sliding surface into close contact with the holder base (Fig. 4 and 4: 58-63: “a permanent magnet 14 secured to the hub 40, and the support assembly 42 has a magnetic body 15 which is faced to this permanent magnet 14 across an axial gap and secured to the base 7 thereby producing an axial magnetic attractive force,” this axial magnetic attractive force urges the rotational assembly 10 towards the support assembly 42, and thereby pressing the end-face sliding surface of shaft 1 against thrust plate 2 of the support assembly 42).
Kaneko teaches a rotating sample stage/rotating body supported relative to a holder base during charged-particle processing, where the rotating body as a sliding surface in slidable surface contact with the holder base. Sakatani teaches applying an axial magnetic attractive force between a rotational assembly and a support assembly to press a sliding surface of the rotational assembly into close contact with a support-side thrust plate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to apply Sakatani’s magnetic preload arrangement to Kaneko’s rotating sample-stage support interface, to maintain stable close contact between the sliding surface and the holder base during rotation, improve support stability, and provide reliable rotation and cooling contact.
Regarding Claim 3:
Kaneko in view of Sakatani teaches the sample holder of claim 1. Sakatani further teaches the magnet is fixed to the rotating body, and a magnetic body is fixed to the holder base (Fig. 4 above: the permanent magnet 14 secured to hub 40 of rotational assembly 10, and the magnetic body 15 is secured to base 7).
Regarding Claim 4:
Kaneko in view of Sakatani teaches the sample holder of claim 1. Sakatani further teaches wherein the magnet (Fig. 10- permanent magnet 70) is fixed to the holder base, and a magnetic body (Fig. 10 - magnetic iron piece 72) is fixed to the rotating body (annotated Fig. 10 below and 11:28-35: “A magnetic iron piece 72 to be attracted is mounted to the lower surface of the hub 40, while a permanent magnet 70 is mounted to the upper Surface of the annular portion 7a of the base 7. The permanent magnet 70 and the magnetic iron piece 72 cause magnetic attractive force to pull the hub 40 toward the base 7”).
PNG
media_image3.png
469
772
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to apply a different embodiment of Sakatani’s magnetic preload arrangement to Kaneko’s rotating sample-stage support interface, as Sakatani has shown that the relative placement of the magnet and magnetic body is interchangeable, because the magnetic attractive force can be produced with the magnet on the rotating assembly and the magnetic body on the support assembly, or with the magnet on the support assembly and the magnetic body on the rotating assembly. Thus, placing the magnet on the stationary holder base and the magnetic body on the rotating body would have been an obvious design choice to simplify the rotating body, reduce rotating mass/imbalance, and still maintain stable close contact between the rotating-body sliding surface and the holder base.
Regarding Claim 5:
Kaneko in view of Sakatani teaches the sample holder of claim 3. Sakatani shows the magnet and magnetic body facing each other across an axial gap and further shows different embodiments (Fig. 4 vs Fig. 10) using different relative placements/distance. Thus, one of ordinary skilled person would have recognized this distance as a result-effective design parameter for controlling magnetic attractive/preload force and would have varied the distance to obtain the desired contact force while avoiding excessive friction or wear.
Regarding Claim 16:
Kaneko in view of Sakatani teaches the sample holder of claim 1. Kaneko further teaches wherein the drive unit continuously rotates the rotating body in a predetermined direction (Figs. 4A-4C and paras. [0023,0037]: “a rotating mechanism for rotating the sample relative to the irradiated ion beam.” Figs. 4A-4C show rotating/tilting the sample stage to a predetermined direction to change the irradiation angle accordingly).
Regarding Claim 18:
Kaneko in view of Sakatani teaches a sample processing apparatus comprising the sample holder according to claim 1. Kaneko further teaches a charged particle beam source (Fig. 3- ion gun 1) that applies a charged particle beam to the sample held on the sample holder (para. [0025]: “atoms are sprung out from the surface of a sample 4 by irradiating an ion beam 2 from the ion gun1 to the sample 4”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko in view of Sakatani , further in view of US 2017/0316913 A1 [hereinafter Stamsnijder].
Regarding Claim 12:
Kaneko in view of Sakatani teaches the sample holder of claim 1. However, the combined references do not specifically note that wherein the holder base has a first wall portion and a second wall portion, and, the sample is disposed between the first wall portion and the second wall portion. Stamsnijder teaches wherein
PNG
media_image4.png
651
699
media_image4.png
Greyscale
the holder base has a first wall portion and a second wall portion, and the sample is disposed between the first wall portion and the second wall portion (see annotated Fig. 1 above and para. [0042]: a sample stage 1 including a rotatable sample carrier 4. The sample carrier 4 includes a bottom 4A and a circumferential wall 4B enclosing a cavity 18 for holding a sample or a sample holder. The cavity 18 holds exchangeable sample holder 5, and sample holder 5 holds sample 5A).
Kaneko teaches an ion-milling apparatus in which a sample stage holds and rotates a sample during charged-particle-beam processing. Stamsnijder teaches a sample carrier for an electron microscope having a bottom and circumferential wall enclosing a cavity that holds a sample holder and sample. It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify Kaneko’s cooled rotatable sample-stage structure to include Stamsnijder’s cavity-type sample carrier having circumferential wall portions for receiving the sample/sample holder, to provide a simple open housing for receiving, locating, and protecting the sample holder on the stage while still allowing access of the charged particle beam to the sample, as an application of a known sample-carrier housing structure to Kaneko’s known charged-particle-beam sample stage to obtain the predictable result of retaining the sample/sample holder in a defined space between wall portions.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko in view of Sakatani, further in view of US 2020/0408246A1 [hereinafter Omori].
Regarding Claim 14:
Kaneko in view of Sakatani teaches the sample holder of claim 1. Kaneko further teaches wherein the rotating body includes: a holder (Fig. 3- sample stage 5) that holds the sample (Fig. 3- sample); a rotating base that detachably holds the holder and is rotatably supported on the holder base (the rotating sample stage 5 and the holder base 17 are attached by the universal joint 11 which would allow the holder to be detached from the holder base).
However, the combined references do not specifically note that a multi-layer foil having a surface serving as the sliding surface. Omori teaches a multi-layer foil having a surface serving as the sliding surface (para. [0052]: “radial foil bearing 3 is a bearing that is disposed outside the rotary shaft 1 and supports the rotary shaft 1. The radial foil bearing 3 includes a top foil 9, an intermediate foil 10, and a back foil 11”).
Kaneko teaches a sample holder where the rotating body rotates relatively to the holder base via a universal joint. Omori teaches using a multi-layer foil structure having a surface serving as a sliding surface (the top foil) between a rotating body and a support. It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify Kaneko’s universal-joint/support interface to include a multi-layer foil sliding member as taught by Omori, to provide a compliant, low-friction support surface that accommodates relative rotation and vibration/misalignment while maintaining contact between the rotating body and support, as a use of a known foil-bearing sliding/support structure in Kaneko’s known rotating stage support to obtain the predictable result of improved rotational support and reduced friction/wear at the sliding interface.
Regarding Claim 15:
Kaneko in view of Sakatani and Hashish teaches the sample holder of claim 14. Omori further teaches wherein the rotating base is rotatably supported on the holder base via a bearing (the multi-layer foil is a bearing).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko in view of Sakatani, further in view of US 2012/0112064 A1 [hereinafter Nagakubo].
Regarding Claim 17:
Kaneko in view of Sakatani teaches the sample holder of claim 1. However, the combined references do not specifically note that the holder further comprising a base thermally connected to the cooling source, wherein the holder base is thermally connected to the cooling source via the base, and the holder base is connected to the base to be able to be inclined.
Nagakubo teaches that the holder further comprising:
a base (Fig. 6- cooling pipe 36) thermally connected to the cooling source (para. [0067]: “the micro sample 1 is connected to the cooling source via…the cooling pipe 36”), wherein
the holder base (Fig. 6- cooling rotating table 79) is thermally connected to the cooling source via the base (para. [0081]: “the micro sample 1 is thermally connected to the cooling source …via the cooling sample table 3”), and
the holder base is connected to the base to be able to be inclined (Fig. 6 and paras. [0081-0082]: cooling rotating table 79 is fixed to cooling pipe 36 by rotating shaft 83, and its position/tilt is controlled by spring 85, pressing rod 87, and rotation of cooling shaft 37 by motor 51, and “the amount of sample incline are decided on the basis of the structure of the rotation mechanism”).
PNG
media_image5.png
617
888
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Kaneko teaches cooling a rotating/tilting sample stage during ion-beam processing. Nagakubo teaches a “biaxial inclined cooling holder” in which a sample-supporting rotating table remains thermally connected to a cooling source through a base structure while the sample orientation/tilt is adjusted. It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify Kaneko’s cooled tiltable sample-stage structure using Nagakubo’s thermally connected inclinable cooling-holder support arrangement, to maintain efficient heat transfer to the cooling source while still allowing the sample holder to be inclined for setting the ion-beam incidence angle, as an application of a known cooled inclinable holder structure to Kaneko’s known cooled ion-milling sample stage to obtain the predictable result of cooling the sample during angular adjustment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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 pate t 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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights