DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s arguments, filed 27 May 2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
3. Applicant argues, on pg. 5, that Gachter, Parmenter, Krause, and Kaneko, alone or in combination do not disclose or render obvious the subject matter of claims 1 and 17, specifically that Gachter does not directly hold a charged particle microscopy sample. The argument is not persuasive. Parmenter explicitly teaches a sample carrier with protrusions, referred to as posts, that directly hold a charged particle microscopy sample, specifically a lamella. More details are shown in rejections set forth below.
4. Applicant argues, on pg. 6-7, that Gachter, Parmenter, Krause, and Kaneko, alone or in combination do not disclose or render obvious that wherein the carrier is formed from a single metal piece. The applicant argues that Gatcher teaches away from a single piece arrangement. The argument is not persuasive. Gatcher does not discourage a single-piece construction. The mere fact that Gachter prefers a multiplate assembly does not preclude a person of ordinary skill from using a different manufacturing method. Krause explicitly teaches using laser processing to form a single piece sample body holder, and that the holder should have structural integrity for a reliable holding function (Krause column 10). More details are shown in rejections set forth below.
5. Applicant argues, on pg. 6, that a person or ordinary skill in the art would not look to Krause when modifying Gachter or Parmenter (or vice versa) because Krause is concerned with the preparation of a sample for microstructure diagnostics, not the diagnostics themselves. The argument is not persuasive. Krause is within the same field of endeavor because it is directed to methods for preparing samples for microstructure diagnostics, including transmission electron microscopy (TEM) (Krause column 12), which is analogous to the field of the instant application.
6. While applicant's arguments regarding the teachings of Gachter, Krause, Kaneko, and Parmenter are not persuasive, the previous rejections of claims 1, 17, and their dependents under 35 U.S.C. 103 and 35 U.S.C. 102 are withdrawn since the claim scope has changed. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1, 6-7, 10-12, 14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Parmenter Christopher David ET AL, "Cryo-FIB-lift-out: practically impossible to practical reality", Journal of Microscopy, Vol. 281, Issue 2 2021, 7 February 2021, pages. 157–174 (hereinafter referred to as Parmenter) in view of Gachter (US 20120132828 Al), further in view of Krause (US 10591393 B2).
10. Regarding claim 1:
Parmenter teaches a sample carrier for a charged particle microscope (pg. 157 introduction section teaches that the lamella is mounted on a support grid, which is the sample carrier, and can be transferred to the TEM), the sample carrier comprising: a planar or substantially planar body (fig. 16(A) teaches a solution to 'one-piece' handling of the lift out grid. The grid shown in fig. 16(A) has a planar or substantially planar body), wherein the planar or substantially planar body is substantially circular (as shown on pg. 172 fig. 16(A),
the planar body of the 'one-piece' handling of the LO-grid is substantially circular);
an opening provided in the planar or substantially planar body; and at least one protrusion extending into the opening within a plane defined by the planar or substantially planar body, wherein the protrusion is configured to directly hold a charged particle microscopy sample; wherein the planar or substantially planar body comprises a central portion and an outer edge (as shown on pg. 172 fig. 16(A), the planar body of the 'one-piece' handling of the LO-grid has a central portion surrounding the central opening. Fig. 16(A) teaches a grid where the opening comprises three protrusions extending into the opening. Pg. 164 teaches that the lamellae are usually mounted on top of the posts, which is the protrusion The most outer edge of the central portion surrounding the central opening corresponds to the outer edge), and
wherein the opening comprises at least two protrusions extending into the opening within a plane defined by the planar or substantially planar body (fig. 16(A) teaches a grid where the opening comprises three protrusions extending into the opening), wherein the carrier is formed from a metal piece (Pg. 164 teaches that most LO-grids are made from copper)
Parmenter fails to teach that wherein the outer edge is thicker than the central portion and the opening is provided in the central portion, wherein the carrier includes a mechanical support contour.
However, Gachter teaches that wherein the outer edge is thicker than the central portion
and the opening is provided in the central portion, wherein the carrier includes a mechanical support contour (fig. 3 shows that the outer edge of mount 200 is thicker than the base plate that corresponds to the central portion surrounding the opening. [0069] teaches that cartridge 200 has a round outer edge 210 and that the remaining features of cartridge 200 are analogous to those of cartridge 100. In mount 100, the base plate 101 corresponds to the central portion surrounding the central opening 103. The cover plate 102 in combination with the base plate 101 corresponds to the outer edge, which is thicker than the base plate 101 that corresponds to the central portion. Such thicker edge corresponds to the mechanical support contour).
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 Parmenter in view of Gachter to include that wherein the outer edge is thicker than the central portion and the opening is provided in the central portion, wherein the carrier includes a mechanical support contour. Such modification would allow for access to the sample carrier and to the clip elements (as taught in Gachter [0033]) and a large tilt angle for viewing the sample surface (as taught in Gachter [0027]).
Parmenter in view of Gachter fails to teach that wherein the at least two protrusions are on the opposite sides of the opening, and wherein the carrier is formed from a single metal piece and includes an integral mechanical support contour.
Krause teaches that wherein the at least two protrusions are on the opposite sides of the opening (fig. 6 teaches that the protrusions are placed on the opposite sides of the opening) and using laser beam processing to form a sample body holder from a single piece of material (as taught in Krause column 10).
The inventions are analogous because they are both directed towards transmission electron microscope integration (Krause column 1 teaches that the FIB generated sample bodies are mounted on carrier structures compatible with standardized sample holders of TEM installations. Parmenter pg. 165 teaches that LO-grid can be moved directly to the holder of a TEM rod for analysis). 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 Parmenter in view of Gachter, further in view of Krause to include that wherein the at least two protrusions are on the opposite sides of the opening and wherein the carrier is formed from a single metal piece and includes an integral mechanical support contour. Krause modifies Parmenter in view of Gachter by incorporating the protrusions on the opposite sides of the opening and processing the sample carrier, as taught by Parameter in view of Gachter, using laser processing to form a single metal piece and an integral mechanical support contour. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to increase efficiency of the subsequent analysis (as taught in Krause column 18) and to form a sample body holder from a single piece of material that has structural integrity for a reliable holding function (as taught in Krause column 10).
11. Regarding claim 6:
Parmenter in view of Gachter, further in view of Krause teaches the sample carrier of claim 1. Parmenter in view of Gachter fails to teach that wherein the at least two protrusions are inversely mirrored on opposing sides of the opening.
Krause teaches that the geometry of the sample body holder can be changed to adapt specific needs (column 5 lines 46-49 teaches that the sample body holder can, in principle, have a free design, in particular such that it fits to accommodation structures in devices for subsequent method steps and for the actual microstructure examination).
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 Parmenter in view of Gachter, further in view of Krause to include that wherein the at least two protrusions are inversely mirrored on opposing sides of the opening. Such modification would allow the sample holder to accommodate structures in devices for subsequent method steps and for the actual microstructure examination (as taught in Krause column 5 lines 46-49) and increasing not only the efficiency of the preparation, but also the efficiency of the subsequent analysis (as taught in Krause column 18 lines 45-48).
12. Regarding claim 7:
Parmenter in view of Gachter, further in view of Krause teaches the sample carrier of claim 1. Parmenter in view of Gachter fails to teach that wherein the at least two protrusions located on opposite sides are positioned to not be directly opposite.
Krause teaches that the geometry of the sample body holder can be changed to adapt specific needs (column 5 lines 46-49 teaches that the sample body holder can, in principle, have a free design, in particular such that it fits to accommodation structures in devices for subsequent method steps and for the actual microstructure examination).
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 Parmenter in view of Gachter, further in view of Krause to include that wherein the at least two protrusions are positioned to not be directly opposite on opposing sides of the opening. Such modification would allow the sample holder to accommodate structures in devices for subsequent method steps and for the actual microstructure examination (as taught in Krause column 5 lines 46-49) and increasing not only the efficiency of the preparation, but also the efficiency of the subsequent analysis (as taught in Krause column 18 lines 45-48).
13. Regarding claim 10:
Parmenter in view of Gachter, further in view of Krause teaches the sample carrier of claim 1. Parmenter further teaches that wherein the opening is centrally located in the planar or substantially planar body (fig. 16(A) teaches that the opening is in the center of the planar body).
14. Regarding claim 11:
Parmenter in view of Gachter, further in view of Krause teaches the sample carrier of claim 1. Parmenter in view of Gachter fails to teach that wherein the opening is substantially rectangular.
However, Krause teaches that wherein the opening is substantially rectangular (fig. 6 teaches that the opening is substantially rectangular).
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 Parmenter in view Gachter, further in view of Krause to include that wherein the opening is substantially rectangular. Such modification would allow the protrusions to be placed on the opposite side of each other to increase not only the efficiency of the preparation, but also the efficiency of the subsequent analysis (as taught in Krause column 18 lines 45-48).
15. Regarding claim 12:
Parmenter in view of Gachter, further in view of Krause teaches the sample carrier of claim 1. Parmenter further teaches that wherein the charged particle microscopy sample is a lift-out sample (The charged particle microscopy sample is not positively claimed and does not impart patentability. Pg. 157 introduction section teaches cryogenic-Lift-Out (cryo-LO) on a lamella mounted to a copper support post).
16. Regarding claim 14:
Parmenter in view of Gachter, further in view of Krause the sample carrier of claim 1. Parmenter further teaches that wherein the charged particle microscope is a transmission electron microscope (pg. 157 summary teaches the Cryo-Lift-Out (cryo-LO) technique as preparation tool for cryogenic transmission electron microscopy).
17. Regarding claim 16:
Parmenter in view of Gachter, further in view of Krause teaches the sample carrier of claim 1. Parmenter further teaches that wherein the metal piece is copper (Pg. 164 teaches that most LO-grids are made from copper).
18. Regarding claim 17:
Parmenter teaches a method of preparing a sample for inspection in a charged particle microscope (pg. 157 summary section teaches the Cryo-Lift- Out (cryo-LO) technique as preparation tool for cryogenic transmission electron microscopy), the method comprising:
providing a sample carrier (pg. 157 introduction section teaches that the lamella is mounted on a support grid, which is the sample carrier), the sample carrier including a planar or substantially planar body (fig. 16(A) teaches a solution to 'one-piece' handling of the lift out grid. The grid shown in fig. 16(A) has a planar or substantially planar body), an opening provided in the planar or substantially planar body (the grid shown in fig. 16(A) has an opening in the body), and
at least one protrusion extending into the opening within a plane defined by the planar or substantially planar body (the grid shown in fig. 16(a) has 3 protrusions extending into the opening within a plane), wherein the protrusion is configured to directly hold a charged particle microscopy sample (pg. 164 teaches that the lamellae are usually mounted on top of the posts, which is the protrusion),
wherein the planar or substantially planar body is substantially circular (as shown on pg. 172 fig. 16(A), the planar body of the 'one-piece' handling of the LO-grid is substantially circular) and comprises a central portion and an outer edge (as shown on pg. 172 fig. 16(A), the planar body of the 'one-piece' handling of the LO-grid has a central portion surrounding the central opening. The most outer edge of the central portion surrounding the central opening corresponds to the outer edge), wherein the opening comprises at least two protrusions extending into the opening within a plane defined by the planar or substantially planar body (fig. 16(A) teaches a grid where the opening comprises three protrusions extending into the opening), wherein the carrier is formed from a metal piece (Pg. 164 teaches that most LO-grids are made from copper); connecting the sample carrier to a mechanical stage device of the charged particle microscope (pg. 165 Transfer to the TEM section teaches that the LO-grid can be moved directly to the hold of a TEM rod for analysis); providing the charged particle microscopy sample (pg. 164 teaches the process of providing the sample); and connecting the sample to a grid member of the sample carrier (pg. 164 teaches attaching the lamella to the LO-grid).
Parmenter fails to teach that wherein the outer edge is thicker than the central portion and the opening is provided in the central portion, wherein the carrier includes a mechanical support contour.
Parmenter fails to teach that wherein the outer edge is thicker than the central portion and the opening is provided in the central portion, wherein the carrier includes a mechanical support contour.
However, Gachter teaches that wherein the outer edge is thicker than the central portion
and the opening is provided in the central portion, wherein the carrier includes a mechanical support contour (fig. 3 shows that the outer edge of mount 200 is thicker than the base plate that corresponds to the central portion surrounding the opening. [0069] teaches that cartridge 200 has a round outer edge 210 and that the remaining features of cartridge 200 are analogous to those of cartridge 100. In mount 100, the base plate 101 corresponds to the central portion surrounding the central opening 103. The cover plate 102 in combination with the base plate 101 corresponds to the outer edge, which is thicker than the base plate 101 that corresponds to the central portion. Such thicker edge corresponds to the mechanical support contour).
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 Parmenter in view of Gachter to include that wherein the outer edge is thicker than the central portion and the opening is provided in the central portion, wherein the carrier includes a mechanical support contour. Such modification would allow for access to the sample carrier and to the clip elements (as taught in Gachter [0033]) and a large tilt angle for viewing the sample surface (as taught in Gachter [0027]).
Parmenter in view of Gachter fails to teach that wherein the at least two protrusions are on the opposite sides of the opening, and wherein the carrier is formed from a single metal piece and includes an integral mechanical support contour.
Krause teaches that wherein the at least two protrusions are on the opposite sides of the opening (fig. 6 teaches that the protrusions are placed on the opposite sides of the opening) and using laser beam processing to form a sample body holder from a single piece of material (as taught in Krause column 10).
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 Parmenter in view of Gachter, further in view of Krause to include that wherein the at least two protrusions are on the opposite sides of the opening and wherein the carrier is formed from a single metal piece and includes an integral mechanical support contour. Krause modifies Parmenter in view of Gachter by incorporating the protrusions on the opposite sides of the opening and processing the sample carrier, as taught by Parameter in view of Gachter, using laser processing to form a single metal piece and an integral mechanical support contour. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to increase efficiency of the subsequent analysis (as taught in Krause column 18) and to form the sample body holder from a single piece of material that has structural integrity for a reliable holding function (as taught in Krause column 10).
19. Regarding claim 18:
Parmenter in view of Gachter, further in view of Krause teaches the method of claim 17. Parmenter further teaches that wherein the sample is a lift-out sample (pg. 157 introduction section teaches cryogenic-Lift-Out (cryo-LO) on a lamella mounted to a copper support post).
20. Regarding claim 19:
Parmenter in view of Gachter, further in view of Krause the method according to claim 17. Parmenter further teaches that wherein the charged particle microscope is a transmission electron microscope (pg. 157 summary teaches the Cryo-Lift-Out (cryo-LO) technique as preparation tool for cryogenic transmission electron microscopy).
21. Regarding claim 20:
Parmenter in view of Gachter, further in view of Krause teaches the method of claim 19. Parmenter further teaches that wherein the transmission electron microscope is a cryo-TEM (pg. 157 summary teaches the Cryo-Lift-Out (cryo-LO) technique as preparation tool for cryogenic transmission electron microscopy).
22. Claims 3, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Parmenter in
view of Gachter, further in view of Krause, further in view of Kaneko (JP 2019169334 A).
23. Regarding claim 3:
Parmenter in view of Gachter, further in view of Krause teaches the sample carrier of claim 1. Parmenter in view of Gachter, further in view of Krause fails to teach that wherein the at least two protrusions are staggered.
However, Kaneko discloses that wherein the at least two protrusions are staggered (fig.
6A, 6B teach that the at least two protrusions are staggered).
The inventions are analogous because they are directed towards a sample carrier for use
in a charged particle microscope (Parmenter pg. 172, fig. 16 teaches various LO-grid transfer to cryo-TEM. Kaneko description section teaches a sample holder for mounting a sample observed with a transmission electron microscope). 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 Parmenter in view of Gachter, further in view of Krause, further in view of Kaneko to include that wherein the at least two protrusions are staggered. Such modification would allow increasing the number of attached samples and reducing the influence of the focused ion beam thinning process (as taught in Kaneko [0031] and [0032]).
24. Regarding claim 8:
Parmenter in view of Gachter, further in view of Krause teaches the sample carrier of claim 1. Parmenter in view of Gachter, further in view of Krause fails to teach that wherein the at least two protrusions are staggered in a direction substantially orthogonal to the planar body.
However, Kaneko discloses that wherein the at least two protrusions are staggered in a direction substantially orthogonal to the planar body ([0031] teaches that the plurality of mounting pillars, fig. 6B element 3, are arranged stepwise in the thickness direction T, which is orthogonal to the planar body).
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 Parmenter in view Gachter, further in view of Krause, further in view of Kaneko to include that wherein the at least two protrusions are staggered in a direction substantially orthogonal to the planar body. Such modification would allow increasing the number of attached samples, and a sample that is long in the lateral direction X can be attached (as taught in [0031]).
25. Regarding claim 9:
Parmenter in view of Gachter, further in view of Krause teaches the sample carrier of claim 1. Parmenter in view of Gachter, further in view of Krause fails to teach that wherein the at least two protrusions are staggered in a direction substantially parallel to the planar body.
However, Kaneko discloses that that wherein the at least two protrusions are staggered in a direction substantially parallel to the planar body ([0032] teaches making the mounting pillars, fig. 6A element 3, different in length in the longitudinal direction Y, which is parallel to the planar body).
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 Parmenter in view Gachter, further in view of Krause, further in view of Kaneko to include that wherein the at least two protrusions are
staggered in a direction substantially parallel to the planar body. Such modification would reduce
the influence of the focused ion beam thinning process (as taught in [0032]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY LI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5043. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-4:30pm. 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 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.
/LARRY LI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights