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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 18-20, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Applications of depth-resolved cathodoluminescence spectroscopy” (Brillson).
Regarding claim 1, Brillson discloses a method for characterizing a surface region of a material, the method comprising:
generating, from an electron beam generator, an electron beam in a vacuum chamber (“electron gun”);
directing the electron beam at the surface region of the material, at a grazing angle (“glancing incidence electron gun and beam that impinges on a specimen attached to a manipulator.”);
receiving, by a detector assembly, cathodoluminescent light emission arising from the electron beam transferring energy to the surface region (“The light emitted by the specimen is collected by a quartz lens and passed through a sapphire window into a monochromator and photoelectron detector.”), wherein the detector assembly is positioned above the surface region and operates within a vacuum environment (inherent in the use of photomultiplier); and
determining by the detector assembly, spectral characteristics of the cathodoluminescent light emission to characterize the surface region (“This configuration provides point spectra”).
Regarding claim 6, Billson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the detector assembly is positioned directly above the surface region (fig. 3(a)).
Regarding claim 17, Billson discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising applying a bias voltage to the material (“an applied bias of 3.2 V”).
Regaring claim 18, Brillson discloses a method for characterizing a surface region of a material, the method comprising:
generating, from an electron beam generator coupled to a side wall of a vacuum chamber, an electron beam in the vacuum chamber (fig. 3(a), electron gun);
directing the electron beam at the surface region of the material, at a grazing angle (“glancing incidence electron gun and beam that impinges on a specimen attached to a manipulator.”);
receiving, by a detector assembly, cathodoluminescent light emission arising from the electron beam transferring energy to the surface region, wherein an optical entry path of the detector assembly is positioned above the surface region (“The light emitted by the specimen is collected by a quartz lens and passed through a sapphire window into a monochromator and photoelectron detector.”); and
determining, by the detector assembly, spectral characteristics of the cathodoluminescent light emission to characterize the surface region (“This configuration provides point spectra”).
Regarding claim 20, Billson discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the optical entry path of the detector assembly is positioned at a detection angle of 70° to 110° relative to the surface region (fig. 3(a)).
Regarding claim 29, Billson discloses the method of claim 18, further comprising applying a bias voltage to the material (“an applied bias of 3.2 V”).
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(s) 3 & 5, 7-14, 16, 19, and 21-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applications of depth-resolved cathodoluminescence spectroscopy” (Brillson).
Regarding claim 3, Billson discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising configuring a beam energy Eb of the electron beam (“The peaked nature of the energy loss profile and its variation with incident beam energy enables the study of bulk, surface and interface regions of a solid selectively,”).
Brillson does not disclose configuring the beam energy such that a hot charged carrier is transferred into the surface region with an energy Ein≫3/2Eg, wherein Eg is a bandgap energy of the material. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to choose an energy such that a hot charged carrier is transferred into the surface region with an energy Ein≫3/2Eg so that excited states are reached and the relevant emission peaks detected, as Brillison do disclose that cathodoluminescence is known to cause such emissions (“Also, figure 11(c) inset shows the appearance of a new emission at ∼4.1 eV with a 550 °C anneal. This energy agrees well with the ∼4.2 eV band gap energy of Ta2O5 [67] and demonstrates the ability of DRCLS to measure optical transitions within nm-thick reaction products at metal–semiconductor interfaces.”).
Regarding claim 5, Brillson discloses the claimed invention except it is silent as to whether the grazing angle is less than or equal to 25°. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to choose a grazing angle less than or equal to 25° if low penetration depth were desired.
Regarding claim 7, Brillson discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the detector assembly has an optical entry path, and the detector assembly is positioned with the optical entry path at a detection angle approximately normal to the surface region (fig. 3(a)).
Brillson is silent as to whether the detection angle is 85° to 95°. Detection assemblies capable of capturing light in a solid angle of ±5° are well known in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to detect at such an angle as a matter of routine optimization or experimentation, as applicant has not stated that this range is critical or necessary to solve a particular problem.
Regarding claim 8, Brillson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the detector assembly has an aperture that receives the cathodoluminescent light emission (fig. 3(a)).
Brillson is silent as to whether the aperture positioned at a distance of 1 mm to 200 mm from the surface region (fig. 3(a)). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to place the detection lens 1-200 mm away from the surface as a matter of routine optimization or experimentation, as applicant has not stated that this range is critical or necessary to solve a particular problem.
Regarding claim 9, Brillson discloses the claimed invention except it is silent as to whether the detector assembly has a numerical aperture in a range of 0.2 to 1.5. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use an objective lens with such a numerical aperture as a matter of routine optimization or experimentation, as applicant has not stated that this range is critical or necessary to solve a particular problem.
Regarding claims 10-12, Brillson discloses the claimed invention except it silent as to whether the method includes a step of collimating the cathodoluminescent light emission with a collimator in the detector assembly, the collimator comprising non-refractive optics, without any refractive optics, comprising refractive optics, or comprising a combination of refractive optics and non-refractive optics. Collimating beams is well-known in the art and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the method to include a step of collimating so that the beam divergence does not cause the spectral aspects to blur. Regarding the optics used to do this, all three options are well known, and it would have been obvious to use any of them as desired.
Regarding claims 13, Brillson discloses the claimed invention except it silent as to whether the spectral characteristics are in a deep ultraviolet wavelength range of 110 nm to 400 nm or 110 nm to 280 nm. The method will work the same regardless of wavelength range, and the choice of wavelength to detect comes down to a setting on the monochromator. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to tune the monochromator to detect deep ultraviolet light in the specified ranges if the looking for the present of materials, defects, or other properties that are known to emit cathodoluminescence in that wavelength range.
Regarding claim 14, Brillson discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: providing a mounting platform in the vacuum chamber, the mounting platform configured to support the material (fig. 3(a), manipulator platform).
Brillson does not disclose using the mounting platform to cool or heat the material during the cathodoluminescent light emission arising from the electron beam impacting the surface region. Heating and cooling samples is common in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to cool the material during the cathodoluminescent light emission to prevent heat damage from the electron beam and to reduce blackbody radiation that could potentially interfere with the cathodoluminescence signal.
Regarding claims 16, Brillson discloses the claimed invention except for pulsing the electron beam during the directing of the electron beam to impact the surface region of the material. Methods of pulsing electron beams are well-known in the art and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to pulse the electron beam to reduce irradiation damage.
Regarding claims 19 and 21-27 see analysis of claims 3, 5, 8-13, and 16-17, respectively (note that claim 22 maps to both 8 & 9).
Regarding claims 28, Brillson discloses the claimed invention except for measuring a crystalline property of the surface region with a reflection high-energy electron diffraction (RHEED) apparatus coupled to a second side wall of the vacuum chamber. Methods of measuring a crystalline property of a surface region with a reflection high-energy electron diffraction (RHEED) apparatus are well known in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the method of Brillson to includes such a step so that additional information could be gathered about the sample.
Claim(s) 2, 4, & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brillson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of by US 2019/0198288 (Maazouz et al.).
Regarding claim 2, Brillson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein directing the electron beam comprises setting a beam energy of the electron beam to adjust a penetration depth of the electron beam into the surface region (“The peaked nature of the energy loss profile and its variation with incident beam energy enables the study of bulk, surface and interface regions of a solid selectively,”).
Brillson does not disclose setting the grazing angle to adjust the penetration depth. Maazouz et al. disclose a method of characterizing a surface region of a sample including a step of setting the grazing angle to adjust the penetration depth (“The target 1202 is typically supported by a sample movement stage 1210 that can be translated and/or rotated in various directions so that the target 1202 can be positioned at a suitable plane or position relative to the electron beam” P 61). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the method of Brillson to include the step of setting the angle as in Maazouz et al. so that the incidence angle is set to a value that is ideal for the desired penetration depth and collection.
Regarding claim 4, Brillson discloses the method of claim 1, the material comprises an epitaxial layer on a substrate (“reported the appearance of a 1.7 eV defect emission attributed to P vacancies [35] in gas source molecular beam epitaxy (GSMBE) versus organometallic vapour phase epitaxy (MOVPE).”, and setting a parameter so such that a majority of the cathodoluminescent light emission is emitted from the epitaxial layer rather than the substrate (“The peaked nature of the energy loss profile and its variation with incident beam energy enables the study of bulk, surface and interface regions of a solid selectively,”).
Brillson sets the incident energy to ensure probing of the epitaxial laser, rather than the incidence angle. Maazouz et al. disclose a method of characterizing a surface region of a sample including a step of setting the grazing angle (“The target 1202 is typically supported by a sample movement stage 1210 that can be translated and/or rotated in various directions so that the target 1202 can be positioned at a suitable plane or position relative to the electron beam” P 61). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the method of Brillson to substitute setting the grazing angle for setting the beam energy because the incident angle and incident energy both effects the penetration depth, and setting the incidence angle rather than the energy allows for use with different energies as desired to probe different band gaps.
Regarding claim 15, Brillson discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: providing a mounting platform in the vacuum chamber, the mounting platform configured to support the material (fig. 3(a), manipulator platform).
Brillson does not disclose adjusting a tilt angle of the mounting platform to change the grazing angle. Maazouz et al. disclose a method of characterizing a surface region of a sample where a tilt angle of a mounting platform is adjusted to change the grazing angle (“The target 1202 is typically supported by a sample movement stage 1210 that can be translated and/or rotated in various directions so that the target 1202 can be positioned at a suitable plane or position relative to the electron beam” P 61). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Brillson to include a step of adjusting a tilt angle of the mounting platform to change the grazing angle as in Maazouz et al. so that the electron incidence angle could be set as desired.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-5782. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm Pacific Time 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, 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.
/ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881