DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on April 8th, 2026. Claims 1-8 and 10-29 are pending.
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 § 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) 1, 3, 5-8, 10-14, and 16-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Applications of depth-resolved cathodoluminescence spectroscopy” (Brillson) in view of US 2021/0396679 (Sturm).
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, wherein the detector assembly comprises optical components (“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”).
Brillson does not disclose whether the optical components in the detector assembly, beyond the lens, are contained within a vacuum environment. Strum discloses a spectrometer for separating out and measuring optical emissions by wavelength, where the optical components are contained within a vacuum environment (“Vacuum spectrometers” P 28). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use such a vacuum spectrometer because this allows for measurement of ultraviolet lengths too short to be transmitted through air, as disclosed in Strum (“In this wavelength region, the transmission through air and optical materials such as quartz glass, CaF2 or MgF2 decreases sharply, which reduces the sensitivity during a measurement. … The fall-off in transmission through air is mainly caused by the absorption of the radiation by the oxygen in the air” P 21-22).
Regarding claim 3, Billson in view of Strum 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 in view of Strum 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 6, Billson in view of Strum discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the detector assembly is positioned directly above the surface region (fig. 3(a)).
Regarding claim 7, Brillson in view of Strum 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 in view of Strum 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 and further 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 place the detection lens 1-200 mm away from the surface and to use a numerical aperture in the range of 0.2 to 1.5 as a matter of routine optimization or experimentation, as applicant has not stated that these ranges are critical or necessary to solve a particular problem
Regarding claims 10-12, Brillson in view of Strum 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 in view of Strum discloses the claimed invention except Brillson is 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. Strum discloses a method of determining by a detector assembly, spectral characteristics of light emission in a deep ultraviolet wavelength range of 110 nm to 400 nm or 110 nm to 280 nm (“very short wavelengths in the so-called vacuum ultraviolet (VUV) wavelength region, with wavelengths below 200 nm.” P 20). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to tune the monochromator or spectrometer to detect deep ultraviolet light in the specified ranges of 110 nm to 400 nm or 110 nm, to 280 nm 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 in view of Strum 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 in view of Strum 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 claim 17, Billson in view of Strum 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”).
Brillson does not disclose whether the optical components in the detector assembly, beyond the lens, are contained within a vacuum environment. Strum discloses a spectrometer for separating out and measuring optical emissions by wavelength, where the optical components are contained within a vacuum environment (“Vacuum spectrometers” P 28). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use such a vacuum spectrometer because this allows for measurement of ultraviolet lengths too short to be transmitted through air, as disclosed in Strum (“In this wavelength region, the transmission through air and optical materials such as quartz glass, CaF2 or MgF2 decreases sharply, which reduces the sensitivity during a measurement. … The fall-off in transmission through air is mainly caused by the absorption of the radiation by the oxygen in the air” P 21-22).
Regarding claims 19 and 21-27 see analysis of claims 3, 5, 8, 10-13, and 16-17.
Regarding claim 20, Billson in view of Strum 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 claims 28, Brillson in view of Strum 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 in view of Strum as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of by US 2019/0198288 (Maazouz et al.).
Regarding claim 2, Brillson in view of Strum 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 in view of Strum 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 in view of Strum 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 8th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument: with respect to the rejections of claim 8 and 22, applicant argues that the distance and numerical apertures ranges cited are not a matter of routine optimization or experimentation and are critical to improving the performance of the system. To show this they highlight several passaging that state that the proximity and position of the detector assembly provides high sensitivity than conventional cathodoluminescent systems and the closeness in conjunction with the high numerical aperture enables capture of a high percentage of the photons being emitted.
Response: The cited passages discuss the advantages of small distances and high numerical apertures in general, they do not even mention the particular ranges of 1-200mm and 0.2-1.5, much less show that those ranges are critical.
Argument: with respect to claims 10-12 and 23-25, applicant argues that the specification describes advantages of using the configurations of optics.
Response: the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Argument: with respect to claims 13 and 26, applicant argues that detection of deep ultraviolet wavelengths are not possible with conventional systems or methods. Applicant points to paragraphs 58 and 80 as evidence.
Response: First, the claim does not require detection of deep ultraviolet light, it requires detection of UV light in the range of 110 to 400 nm, which includes near UV as well as DUV. Further, the cited paragraphs do not say that deep ultraviolet wavelengths cannot be detected with the detector assembly such as the one in Brillson, which includes many of the same elements as applicant’s assembly, including an objective lens, a monochromator (grating and slit assembly), and a photomultiplier.
Paragraph 58 says that deep ultraviolet light cannot be detected in SEMs, and the embodiment of Brillson examiner has relied on is not a SEM. Paragraph 80 says that the detector assembly must be operated in a vacuum or be filled with inert gas in order to detect deep ultraviolet wavelengths, because air induces absorbative losses. While Brillson does not specify that it operates in a vacuum or is filled with an inert gas, the monochromator of Brillson is a sealed space (as shown by sapphire window) and therefore capable of operation with an inert atmosphere or under vacuum. Furthermore, Strum discloses a spectrometer specifically designed to detect deep ultraviolet wavelengths.
Argument: applicant argues that examiner’s conclusory statements that the techniques of the present claims are well-known do not satisfy the evidentiary requirement of an obviousness rejection. Applicant also notes that an obviousness rejection must have some articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness, though how this relates to the taking of Official Notice is unclear.
Response: Official Notice unsupported by documentary evidence may be taken by the examiner where the facts asserted to be well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art, are "capable of such instant and unquestionable demonstration as to defy dispute." In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418, 420 (CCPA 1970). The facts asserted by examiner to be well-known, for example that methods of heating and cooling samples are known to exist in the prior art (see rejection of claim 14), are capable of such instant and unquestionable demonstration as to defy dispute.
Regarding whether there is some articulated reasoning underpinning examiner’s rejections, examiner considers that she has provided such reasoning or rationale for each and every obviousness rejection, and applicant has not point out any specific rejections that are lacking a discussion of reasons for obviousness.
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 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
Prosecution Insights