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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “cooling apparatus configured to perform cooling” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, the word "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mori (JP 2007-335134 A).
Regarding claim 1, Mori teaches a method for reducing the power consumption of a charged particle system (scanning electron microscope, Abstract), the charged particle system comprising at least one charged particle element (objective lens 5) and a cooling assembly (cooling unit 91; is a water cooling unit similar in structure and function to that of the current specification) configured for cooling the at least one charged particle optics element (p. 10 paragraph 2), the method comprising the steps of:
Running the charged particle system in a standby mode (Abstract), wherein the total power consumption of the charged particle system is reduced compared to running the charged particle system in an operating mode (“In the standby mode, electric power corresponding to the amount of heat taken away by the cooling water can be reduced”, p. 10 paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 2, Mori teaches that the at least one charged particle optics element comprises a respective element temperature (objective lens temperature, p. 2 paragraphs 1-2);
Wherein the method further comprises determining a temperature setpoint for the charged particle optical element (setting temperature in standby mode, p. 5 paragraph 7); and
Wherein running the charged particle system in the standby mode comprises:
Reducing and/or stopping the cooling of said charged particle element (in standby mode, cooling means stops supply of cooling water, p. 10 paragraph 4) and
Stabilizing the respective element temperature of said at least one charged particle optical element to the respective temperature setpoint (“in standby mode objective lens can be held at predetermined temperature”, p. 10 paragraph 5)
Regarding claim 3, Mori teaches that the at least one charged particle optics element is current driven and the method comprises providing a respective current to the at least one charged particle optics element (p. 9 paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 4, Mori teaches that stabilizing the respective element temperature comprises providing a respective standby current to the associated charged particle optics element (“in standby mode a predetermined excitation current passes through objective lens 5”), and
Wherein providing the respective standby current comprises controlling the respective standby current provided to the associated charged particle optics element (i.e. the current is controlled to the predetermined level).
Regarding claim 5, Mori teaches that controlling the respective standby current provided to the associated charged particle optics element comprises reducing the average current compared to running the charged particle system in the operating mode (exciting current in standby mode is small, p. 10 paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 6, Mori teaches that stabilizing the respective element temperature of the associated charged particle optics element comprises determining a present element temperature of the associated charged particle optics element (by objective lens temperature detection unit 9, p. 5 last paragraph-p. 6 paragraph 1), and
Wherein controlling the respective standby current comprises comparing the present element temperature of the associated charged particle optics element to the respective temperature setpoint and adjusting the provided respective standby current based on said comparing (setting excitation current based on desired temperature, p. 6 paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 7, Mori teaches modulating said standby current to reduce the average current supplied to the associated charged particle element (setting standby current, p. 6 paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 9, Mori teaches that the at least one charged particle element is an electromagnetic lens (objective lens 5, p. 1 paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 10, Mori teaches that the charged particle system is a charged particle beam microscopy system (electron beam microscopy, Abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Mori teaches a charged particle system (electron microscope system, Abstract) comprising:
At least one charged particle optics element (objective lens 5);
A cooling assembly (cooling unit 91) configured for cooling the at least one charged particle optics element,
Wherein the system is configured to assume at least two configurations, an operating configuration and a standby configuration (Abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Mori teaches that the at least one charged particle element is current driven,
Wherein in the operating configuration the charged particle optical element is provided with an operating current (p. 6 paragraph 1), and
Wherein in the standby configuration the charged particle operating element is provided with a standby current that is lower than the operating current (p. 10 paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 13, Mori teaches that in the operating configuration the at least one charged particle element is at an operating temperature (temperature in the observation mode, p. 4 paragraph 5);
Wherein the respective operating temperature defines a respective temperature setpoint for each of the at least one charged particle optics element; and
Wherein in the standby configuration at least one of the at least one charged particle optics element is stabilized to the respective temperature setpoint (past objective lens temperatures is used as set temperature of standby mode, p. 7, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 14, Mori teaches that in the operating configuration the at least one charged particle opts element is cooled by means of the cooling assembly; and
Wherein in the standby configuration at least one of the at least one charged particle optics element is not cooled by means of the cooling assembly (deactivating cooling assembly, p. 10 paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 16, Mori teaches a charged particle system (electron microscope system, Abstract) comprising:
At least one charged particle optics element (objective lens 5);
A cooling assembly (cooling unit 91) configured for cooling the at least one charged particle optics element,
Wherein the system is configured to run in a standby mode (Abstract), wherein the total power consumption of the charged particle system when running in the standby mode is reduced compared to running the system in an operating mode (p. 10 paragraph 5).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori.
Regarding claim 8, Mori teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Mori does not teach that the power consumption of the charged particle system in the standby mode is reduced by at least 33%, preferably at least 40%, more preferably at least 50% compared to running the charged particle system in the operating mode.
However, one of the purposes of the standby mode of Mori is to reduce the power consumption of the system (p. 10 paragraph 5) and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the power consumption of the standby mode can be easily adjusted by setting the current. The electron beam system of Mori comprises a water-cooled objective lens which is a similar structure to the current invention as described in the specification and presumably has similar power consumption characteristics. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the current of the system of Mori to have at least 33% reduction of power consumption in the standby mode, as a matter of adjusting a result-effective variable (the current which determines the power consumption) through routine experimentation to achieve the goal taught by Mori of minimizing power consumption in the standby mode with no unexpected result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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 22293. 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.
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881