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 § 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.
Claims 5 and 13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 13 recite “a balloon-shaped airbag”. As the overall shape of balloons may vary, this does not clearly define the shape of the airbag, and it is not clear from the specification what shape is meant.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-12, 15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aramaki (US 20140292189 A1) in view of Uchida (US 20150348744 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Aramaki teaches a focused ion beam apparatus (Abstract) comprising:
An ion beam emitter (ion source 41) configured to emit an ion beam;
A focused ion beam chamber (10) for having ion gas introduced therein (from ion gas source supply 46);
A sample stage (3) in the focused ion beam chamber, the sample stage being configured to support a wafer sample (2).
Aramaki does not teach an airbag in the focused ion beam chamber, the airbag arranged not to interfere with the sample stage.
Uchida teaches an charged particle beam system (electron beam system 100; may be ion beam [0076]) having a stage (50) inside a vacuum chamber (10) with an airbag (mount 12, air spring, [0023]), the airbag arranged not to interfere with the sample stage (it is below the stage and acts as a mount, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to use the stage of Uchida including an air spring, in the focused ion beam chamber of Aramaki, as a matter of substituting a known equivalent sample stage which allows vibration isolation of the stage as taught by Uchida with no unexpected result.
Regarding claim 2, Uchida teaches that the airbag is in an outer periphery of the sample stage (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Uchida teaches that the airbag is in a lower portion of the chamber (fig. 1, focused ion beam chamber in the combination with Aramaki, above).
Regarding claim 4, Aramaki and Uchida do not teach that the airbag is installed to be replaceable.
However it has been held that, when the elements of the claim are taught in the prior art, making the parts of the invention separable is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 V C [R-01.2024], In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) ).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to make the air springs of Uchida separable from the stage apparatus, and therefore at least theoretically replaceable if necessary (as one of ordinary skill in the art can easily conceive of replacing a defective part, e.g. one that is leaking air), with no unexpected result.
Regarding claim 7, Aramaki teaches a pump (vacuum pump) configured to evacuate the focused ion beam chamber ([0037]).
Regarding claim 8, Aramaki teaches a focused ion beam apparatus (Abstract) comprising:
A focused ion beam chamber (10) in which a sample stage (3) configured to support a wafer sample (2) is disposed.
Aramaki does not teach an airbag in the focused ion beam chamber, the airbag being configured to inflate to reduce an effective volume in the focused ion beam chamber.
Uchida teaches an charged particle beam system (electron beam system 100; may be ion beam [0076]) having a stage (50) inside a vacuum chamber (10) with an airbag (mount 12, air spring, [0023]), configured to inflate to reduce an effective volume in the ion beam chamber (i.e. it is inflated, at least before installation, and fills some of the volume of the chamber).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to use the stage of Uchida including an air spring, in the focused ion beam chamber of Aramaki, as a matter of substituting a known equivalent sample stage which allows vibration isolation of the stage as taught by Uchida with no unexpected result.
Regarding claim 9, Aramaki teaches a pump (6) configured to evacuate the focused ion beam chamber after the airbag is inflated (i.e. during operation, after the wafer table is installed).
Regarding claim 10, Uchida teaches that a plurality of airbags are in the focused ion beam chamber at one or more positions that do not interfere with the sample stage.
Regarding claim 11, Uchida teaches that the airbag is in a lower portion of the chamber (fig. 1, focused ion beam chamber in the combination with Aramaki, above).
Regarding claim 12, Aramaki and Uchida do not teach that the airbag is installed to be replaceable.
However it has been held that, when the elements of the claim are taught in the prior art, making the parts of the invention separable is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 V C [R-01.2024], In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) ).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to make the air springs of Uchida separable from the stage apparatus, and therefore at least theoretically replaceable if necessary (as one of ordinary skill in the art can easily conceive of replacing a defective part, e.g. one that is leaking air), with no unexpected result.
Regarding claim 15, Aramaki teaches a method of controlling a focused ion beam apparatus (Abstract), the method comprising:
Attaching a wafer sample (2) on a sample stage (3) in a focused ion beam chamber (10); and
Evacuating the focused ion beam chamber (with pump 6, [0037]).
Aramaki does not teach filling an airbag with air, the airbag being installed in a position in the focused ion beam chamber that does not interfere with the sample stage, or evacuating the ion beam after filling the airbag.
Uchida teaches an charged particle beam system (electron beam system 100; may be ion beam [0076]) having a stage (50) inside a vacuum chamber (10) with an airbag (mount 12, air spring, [0023]), the airbag arranged not to interfere with the sample stage (it is below the stage and acts as a mount, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to use the stage of Uchida including an air spring, in the focused ion beam chamber of Aramaki, as a matter of substituting a known equivalent sample stage which allows vibration isolation of the stage as taught by Uchida with no unexpected result. This would result in filling the airbag (as part of manufacturing the air spring) before the chamber is evacuated (prior to operation of the device).
Regarding claim 17, Uchida teaches that a plurality of airbags are installed in a position that does not interfere with the sample stage and inflated when filled with air to reduce a volume inside the focused ion beam chamber (i.e. they are inflated and fill some of the volume of the chamber).
Regarding claim 18, Uchida teaches that the airbags are installed in a lower portion of the chamber (focused ion beam chamber in the combination with Aramaki, above) and inflated when filled with air to reduce a volume inside the focused ion beam chamber.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aramaki in view of Uchida and in further view of Okamoto (US 6,398,198 B1).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Aramaki and Uchida teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 as described above. Aramaki and Uchida do not teach that the airbag includes at least one of a toroidal airbag, a cylindrical air bag, or a balloon-shaped airbag.
Okamoto teaches a cylindrical air spring (col. 3 lines 60-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to have the air spring of Uchida be cylindrical as taught by Okamoto, as a matter of selecting a known simple shape for an air spring used to absorb vibrations as described by Okamoto with no unexpected result.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aramaki in view of Uchida and in further view of Kelly (US 20010044156 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Aramaki teaches, after evacuating the focused ion beam chamber, generating a focused ion beam to process the wafer sample such that a processed wafer sample is provided (machining the sample by the ion beam, [0029]).
Aramaki does not teach testing the processed wafer sample.
Kelly teaches focused ion beam processing of a sample for subsequent testing (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to use the system of Aramaki to form a test sample as taught by Kelly, as a known application of focused ion beam technology with no unexpected result.
Regarding claim 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the air springs of Uchida replaceable as argued above with respect to claims 4 and 12. Therefore it would have been obvious to replace the air springs at any time when doing so was necessary, including at some time after the wafer processing and testing taught by Aramaki and Kelly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 14 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not teach or suggest placing an airbag comprising a conductive polymer in a focused ion beam chamber, and the applicant has found an unexpected benefit of doing so (adsorbing contaminant molecules in the chamber during processing while reducing the effective volume for faster evacuation).
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