DETAILED ACTION
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
Applicant's election with traverse of the restriction requirement in the reply is acknowledged. The traversal is found persuasive. The requirement is withdrawn.
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to. Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 706.03(k).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
PNG
media_image1.png
120
1248
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
PNG
media_image2.png
89
869
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-16, 19-20 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the duct having a diameter of less than five millimeters in a vicinity of a sample inspection region” but it is unclear to what degree “in a vicinity” encompasses. The specification shows examples of that the duct could be, but the claims are sufficiently broad to read on any parts of the duct system, and thus it would be unclear to a skilled artisan what is encompassed by a vicinity in this context. MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claims 2-3, 6-16, 19-20 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 1.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 –
PNG
media_image3.png
281
1244
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 2, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schmaunz et al. (US 20160260574 A1) [hereinafter Schmaunz].
Regarding claim 1, Schmaunz teaches a gas injection subsystem, comprising:
a duct (see in fig 1: 112, fig 6, [0047]) configured to guide a gas flow from a gas reservoir to a sample inspection region (see figs 1, 6), the duct having a diameter of less than five millimeters in a vicinity of a sample inspection region (see [0085]); and
a valve (see microvalve, [0047]) configured to control the gas flow through the duct (see [0047]), the valve being switchable between:
an open valve state in which a nominal gas flow through the duct is enabled (see [0047]); and
a closed valve state in which the duct is closed to inhibit a gas flow through the gas duct (see [0047]),
wherein the valve is configured so that a switching time between the open and the closed state is at most 100 milliseconds (see [0048]).
Regarding claim 2, Schmaunz teaches the valve (defining as entire assembly) comprises a valve housing (see e.g. Schmaunz, right side of fig 6) which defines a duct portion of the duct (see fig 6, e.g. 615).
Regarding claim 20, Schmaunz teaches an inspection system, comprising: a gas injection subsystem according to claim 1 (see Schmaunz, figs 1, 6); and a charged particles inspection device (see 103) configured to impinge charged particles on a region of interest of a sample (see 606), wherein the region of interest is located at the sample inspection region of the gas injection subsystem (see fig 6).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee Company (https://www.ddp.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Electro-Fluidic-Systems-9th-Edition-Oct-2019.pdf).
Regarding claim 1, Lee Company teaches a gas injection subsystem, comprising:
a duct (see O-3, inlet and outlet ports) configured to guide a gas flow from a gas reservoir (required for operation of system) to a sample inspection region (defining as whatever is at outlet), the duct having a diameter of less than five millimeters in a vicinity of a sample inspection region (see 1.6mm); and
a valve (see O-2, O-4) configured to control the gas flow through the duct (see same), the valve being switchable between:
an open valve state in which a nominal gas flow through the duct is enabled (see same); and
a closed valve state in which the duct is closed to inhibit a gas flow through the gas duct (see same),
wherein the valve is configured so that a switching time between the open and the closed state is at most 100 milliseconds (see 0.5ms, O-5).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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:
PNG
media_image4.png
158
934
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3-6, 7, 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schmaunz et al. (US 20160260574 A1) [hereinafter Schmaunz].
Regarding claim 3, Schmaunz teaches the valve comprises a closure member (some kind of closure member required for intended operation of closing the microvalve, see generally Schmaunz, [0047]) located within the valve housing (see fig 6), the closure member is switchable in an actuating direction between the open valve state and the closed valve state (see [0047]). Schmaunz may fail to explicitly disclose the actuating direction is parallel to a gas flow direction through the duct portion. However, the use of valves having closure members that actuate in the same or perpendicular direction from a flow direction was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. It is noted simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supported a prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2143. It is also noted it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device would involve only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04; In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 4, Schmaunz may fail to explicitly disclose a switching cycle of the valve is at most one second. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select the switching cycle duration (see Schmaunz, fig 3, e.g. [0048,63]) to enable the intended operation of the imaging the entire sample region. It has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It is also noted a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 5, Schmaunz may fail to explicitly disclose a duty cycle of the valve is controllable in a range between 0.01 % and 100 %. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select the switching cycle duration (see Schmaunz, fig 3, e.g. [0048,63]) (and thus the duty cycle) to enable the intended operation of the imaging the entire sample region. It has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It is also noted a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 6, Schmaunz teaches a plurality of ducts (e.g. Schmaunz, in 603, 602, etc) and a common nozzle manifold (see e.g. 615), wherein each duct is configured to guide a respective gas flow from one of a respective plurality of gas reservoirs (see at least one reservoir, [0086]) to the sample inspection region, and nozzle sections (see ends) of the plurality of ducts are connected (operably connected) to the common nozzle manifold in the vicinity of the sample inspection region (see fig 6). Schmaunz may fail to explicitly disclose a plurality of gas reservoirs, but it is noted that the language “at least one reservoir” (see [0086]) suggests that multiple reservoirs may be used. Further, it was well known in the art to use multiple reservoirs, for example to provide easier switching between tanks when one needs to be replaced. It is noted a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04; In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 7, Schmaunz may fail to explicitly disclose wherein, when the nozzle is in an open position and in the vicinity of the inspection region, the nozzle manifold covers a solid angle of at least one steradian around the sample inspection region. However, the solid angle is a function of the beam width, angle, and relative dimensions and position of the inspection region as defined. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust the relative positions and angles of the nozzle manifold relative to the inspection region (see e.g. Schmaunz, [0085, 96-97]) and/or the definition of the inspection region, including a configuration where manifold covers a solid angle of at least one steradian, as a routine skill in the art based on a given specimen and/or inspection region. It has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 14, Schmaunz teaches the gas reservoir comprises at least one member selected from the group consisting of a pressurized gas container (see several bar, Schmaunz, [0089,86]) and a temperature controlled crucible configured to contain a liquid with controlled vapor pressure. Furthermore, it is noted that the use of pressurized gas containers was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed, and would have been obvious to use as a routine skill in the art to enable the intended operation of providing pressurized gas.
Regarding claim 15, Schmaunz teaches the valve (defining as entire assembly) comprises a valve housing (see e.g. Schmaunz, right side of fig 6) which defines a duct portion of the duct (see fig 6, e.g. 615).
Claim 16 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 17, Schmaunz teaches the valve (defining as entire assembly) comprises a valve housing (see e.g. Schmaunz, right side of fig 6) which defines a duct portion of the duct (see fig 6, e.g. 615). Schmaunz may fail to explicitly disclose a switching cycle of the valve is at most one second. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select the switching cycle duration (see Schmaunz, fig 3, e.g. [0048,63]) to enable the intended operation of the imaging the entire sample region. It has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It is also noted a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 18, Schmaunz teaches the valve (defining as entire assembly) comprises a valve housing (see e.g. Schmaunz, right side of fig 6) which defines a duct portion of the duct (see fig 6, e.g. 615). Schmaunz may fail to explicitly disclose a duty cycle of the valve is controllable in a range between 0.01 % and 100 %. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select the switching cycle duration (see Schmaunz, fig 3, e.g. [0048,63]) (and thus the duty cycle) to enable the intended operation of the imaging the entire sample region. It has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It is also noted a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 19, Schmaunz teaches a plurality of ducts (e.g. Schmaunz, in 603, 602, etc) and a common nozzle manifold (see e.g. 615), wherein each duct is configured to guide a respective gas flow from one of a respective plurality of gas reservoirs (see at least one reservoir, [0086]) to the sample inspection region, and nozzle sections (see ends) of the plurality of ducts are connected (operably connected) to the common nozzle manifold in the vicinity of the sample inspection region (see fig 6), wherein the valve comprises a (see e.g. Schmaunz, right side of fig 6) which defines a duct portion of the duct (see fig 6, e.g. 615). Schmaunz may fail to explicitly disclose a plurality of gas reservoirs, but it is noted that the language “at least one reservoir” (see [0086]) suggests that multiple reservoirs may be used. Further, it was well known in the art to use multiple reservoirs, for example to provide easier switching between tanks when one needs to be replaced. It is noted a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04; In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 8, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schmaunz, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki (JP 2001256911 A).
Regarding claim 8, Schmaunz may fail to explicitly disclose a movable stage configured to move a member selected from the group consisting of a nozzle section of the duct located in the vicinity of the sample inspection region and the nozzle manifold. However, Kikuchi teaches a system for using multiple sample stages to improve throughput by provide different combinations of analytical instruments for different experiments to a specimen on a different sample stage (see e.g. Kikuchi, translation, p9, para 5), said system comprising a movable stage (see fig 8: 7) configured to move a member selected from the group consisting of a nozzle section of the duct located in the vicinity of the sample inspection region and the nozzle manifold (see 705, translation p6, last 2 para). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Kikuchi in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to try to improve throughput, while also enabling the ability to direct the gas stream wherever it was desired for any specimen or experiment, in the manner taught by Kikuchi.
Regarding claim 10, Schmaunz may fail to explicitly disclose a pressure gauge configured to measure a gas pressure within the duct, wherein the pressure gauge is in the duct in a vicinity of a nozzle section of the gas duct. However, given the use of desired pressures inside the upstream duct and sample regions (see Schmaunz, [0092]), as well as use of a further pumping stage within the duct portion (see 614), it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to provide pressure gauges to ensure desired operation of the system, as was well known in the art. For example, Suzuki teaches a system using pressure gauges to monitor and control an optimal gas pressure inside a sample chamber (see Suzuki, [0009]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Suzuki in the system of the prior art, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to ensure optimal gas pressures were maintained in the chamber, in the manner taught by Suzuki. Therefore, the combined prior art teaches a pressure gauge (see e.g. Suzuki, fig 1: 9) configured to measure a gas pressure within the duct (inside e.g. Schmaunz, fig 6: 603; alternately just outside 615; alternately note obviousness to rearrange duct portions, see Suzuki, fig 1: 9, with duct portion extending into sample chamber), wherein the pressure gauge is in the duct in a vicinity of a nozzle section of the gas duct (see same).
Regarding claim 11, Schmaunz teaches the valve (defining as entire assembly) comprises a valve housing (see e.g. Schmaunz, right side of fig 6) which defines a duct portion of the duct (see fig 6, e.g. 615).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schmaunz, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kikuchi et al. (WO 2014069325 A1) [hereinafter Kikuchi].
Regarding claim 12, Schmaunz may fail to explicitly disclose a movable stage configured to move a nozzle section of the duct located in the vicinity of the sample inspection region. However, Kikuchi teaches a system for using multiple sample stages to improve throughput by provide different combinations of analytical instruments for different experiments to a specimen on a different sample stage (see e.g. Kikuchi, translation, p9, para 5), said system comprising a movable stage (see fig 8: 7) configured to move a nozzle section of the duct located in the vicinity of the sample inspection region (see 705, translation p6, last 2 para). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Kikuchi in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to try to improve throughput, while also enabling the ability to direct the gas stream wherever it was desired for any specimen or experiment, in the manner taught by Kikuchi.
Regarding claim 13, Schmaunz teaches the valve (defining as entire assembly) comprises a valve housing (see e.g. Schmaunz, right side of fig 6) which defines a duct portion of the duct (see fig 6, e.g. 615).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schmaunz and Kikuchi, as applied to claim 8, further in view of Suzuki (JP 2001256911 A).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teaching of Schmaunz and Kikuchi may fail to explicitly disclose a pressure gauge configured to measure a gas pressure within the duct, wherein the pressure gauge is in the duct in a vicinity of the nozzle section of the gas duct. However, given the use of desired pressures inside the upstream duct and sample regions (see Schmaunz, [0092]), as well as use of a further pumping stage within the duct portion (see 614), it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to provide pressure gauges to ensure desired operation of the system, as was well known in the art. For example, Suzuki teaches a system using pressure gauges to monitor and control an optimal gas pressure inside a sample chamber (see Suzuki, [0009]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Suzuki in the system of the prior art, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to ensure optimal gas pressures were maintained in the chamber, in the manner taught by Suzuki. Therefore, the combined prior art teaches a pressure gauge (see e.g. Suzuki, fig 1: 9) configured to measure a gas pressure within the duct (inside e.g. Schmaunz, fig 6: 603; alternately just outside 615; alternately note obviousness to rearrange duct portions, see Suzuki, fig 1: 9, with duct portion extending into sample chamber), wherein the pressure gauge is in the duct in a vicinity of a nozzle section of the gas duct (see same).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Choi whose telephone number is (571) 272 – 2689. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30 am – 6:00 pm M-F.
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 on (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.
/JAMES CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2881