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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 04/16/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-23 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the drawings have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 12/16/2026, hereinafter NFOA1216.
Applicant’s amendments to the specification have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in NFOA1216.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in NFOA1216.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and arguments have each and every 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously set forth in NFOA1216.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/16/2026 have been fully considered.
In particular, regarding the 112(b) rejection previously set forth regarding claims 15 and 22, Applicant’s arguments are convincing, and the 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because they pertain to the amended claim that included limitations not present at the time of NFOA1216.
Nevertheless, for completeness, Examiner will address the argument presented.
Applicant argues (see p. 3) “Henstra fails to disclose at least the above-emphasized features of claim 1. Henstra's FIG. 1 discloses a "beam limiting diaphragm 104 [that] blocks part of the emitted particles [from a charged particle emitting surface 102] and passes at least two beams, an axial beam 105 centred (sic) around the axis and an off-axis beam 106." [Henstra, FIG. 1 and 10057]. According to Henstra, "a central aperture 110 [is situated] to pass the central [axial] beam (when said beam is not deflected) and an eccentric aperture 109 [is situated] for passing a part of [off-axis] beam 106." [See Henstra, FIG. 1 and 10057]. By contrast, claim 1 recites a beam selector operable to selectively direct the first CPB or the second CPB to a workpiece through the blanking aperture [i.e., through the same aperture]." As shown in the present application at FIG. 1A, the axial beam 111A and the spectral beam 151 are formed by apertures 108, 110 but are selectively directed to a single aperture 128. Henstra fails to disclose such an arrangement and hence fails to anticipate claim 1 so that claim 1 and its dependent clams 2-14 are properly allowable.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as this feature being present in Henstra does not provide a difference between the requirements of the claim and the teachings of Henstra. The limitation at issue requires “a beam selector operable to selectively direct the first CPB or the second CPB to a workpiece through the blanking aperture”, which requires ‘a beam selector’ that is capable of selectively directing one of the two beams to a workpiece through the blanking aperture. The blanking aperture is previously required to be defined in a blanking aperture plate, but neither element is otherwise limited. The applied prior art element for the beam selector (i.e., deflector 111) is disclosed as being capable of selectively directing one of the two beams through one of such holes, and would be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan to be capable of deflecting either beam to either aperture on the blanking plate of Henstra, either of which can reasonably read on ‘the’ blanking aperture under the BRI, as stated in the office action. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not convincing.
Similarly, regarding claim 15, Applicant argues “Henstra fails to disclose at least the above-emphasized features of claim 15. As discussed above, Henstra's FIG. 1 discloses "a central aperture 110 [situated] to pass the central [axial] beam (when said beam is not deflected) and an eccentric aperture 109 [situated] for passing a part of [off-axis] beam 106." [See Henstra, FIG. 1 and 0057]. By contrast, claim 15 recites "at the filter aperture plate, selectively transmitting the first CPB or at least a selected spectral component of the second CPB through the filter aperture," i.e., selectively transmitting the first and second beams through the same aperture. Henstra discloses "a central aperture 110" that "pass[es] the central beam" and "an eccentric aperture" that "pass[es] at least a portion of [off- axis] beam 106" thus fails to disclose all the features of claim 15. For at least this reason, claim 15 and its dependent claims 16-21 are properly allowable over Henstra.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Applicant’s assertion that “at the filter aperture plate, selectively transmitting the first CPB or at least a selected spectral component of the second CPB through the filter aperture” is equivalent to “selectively transmitting the first and second beams through the same aperture” is inaccurate. The claim requires selectively transmitting one of the two beams through the filter aperture, and does not require both at any point. The limitations required by the claim are taught by the prior art as shown in the claim mapping of NOFA1216. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not convincing.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 22 are directed primarily toward amended limitations and, thus, will not be addressed here further, as they are moot. See below for a detailed discussion of amended claim limitations.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “…the third acceptance aperture transmitting a third CPB…”, which appears to recite a method step, however, in context, Examiner believes the limitation is definite and should read ‘…wherein the beam acceptance aperture plate is situated with respect to the CPB source, so that a third CPB is transmitted by the third acceptance aperture…’, or similar;
Claim 9 recites “…a workpiece.”, however, it appears that this should read ‘the workpiece’, since claim 1 already recites ‘a workpiece’, which appears to be the same element.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
As previously indicated, 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(s) is/are: “a spectral disperser situated to…spectrally disperse…” in claim 9, which Examiner views as a nonce term/generic placeholder modified by functional language.
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.
The corresponding structure is found in the ‘General Terminology’ subsection, and in particular, p. 4, lines 25-26: “As used herein, a CPB spectral disperser includes one or more CPB lenses and/or other spectrally dispersive CPB optics.” Accordingly, the corresponding structure is ‘one or more CPB lenses and/or other spectrally dispersive CPB optics’.
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 § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Henstra (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20110284763 A1).
Examiner notes that Henstra is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 06/24/2025.
Regarding claim 1, Henstra teaches a charged-particle beam (CPB) optical system (Abstract; [0002]), comprising:
a beam acceptance aperture plate defining a first acceptance aperture and a second acceptance aperture (See Fig. 1, item 104, having two apertures, either of which could be considered ‘first’ and ‘second’ apertures) and situated with respect to a CPB source (See Fig. 1, item 102) so that a first CPB is transmitted by the first acceptance aperture and a second CPB is transmitted by the second acceptance aperture (See Fig. 1, items 105 and 106, either of which could be ‘first’ and ‘second’ CPBs, corresponding to their respective aperture);
a blanking aperture plate defining a blanking aperture (See Fig. 1, items 108, and either item 109 or item 110); and
a beam selector operable to selectively direct the first CPB or the second CPB to a workpiece through the blanking aperture (See Fig. 1, items 111 and 112; [0048]-[0052]; [0057]; Examiner notes that ‘operable to’ is interpreted as ‘capable of’, and the items are disclosed as being capable of deflecting one of the beams through one of the potential blanking apertures that are ‘the’ blanking aperture).
Regarding claim 2, Henstra teaches the CPB optical system of claim 1.
Henstra further teaches further comprising an optical column situated to receive the first CPB and the second CPB (See Fig. 1, all optical elements downstream of item 104), wherein the first acceptance aperture or the second acceptance aperture is situated on an optical axis of the optical column (See Fig. 1, either aperture in 104, each of which is situated on ‘an’ optical axis of the optical column).
Regarding claim 3, Henstra teaches the CPB system of claim 1.
Henstra further teaches wherein the beam selector includes a first beam deflector and a second beam deflector (See Fig. 1, items 111 and 112), the first beam deflector operable to deflect the second CPB toward an optical axis (See Fig. 1, item 111, directing 106 toward an optical axis; [0057]; Examiner notes that ‘operable to’ is interpreted as ‘capable of’) and the second beam deflector operable to direct the second CPB received from the first beam deflector to a workpiece through the blanking aperture (See Fig. 1, item 112, wherein beam 106 is deflected to a workpiece, and passes through the blanking aperture; [0048]-[0052]; [0057]; Examiner notes that ‘operable to’ is interpreted as ‘capable of’).
Regarding claim 4, Henstra teaches the CPB system of claim 3.
Henstra further teaches wherein the first acceptance aperture and the second acceptance aperture are off-axis apertures (See Fig. 4, showing two apertures which are positioned off axis 101).
Regarding claim 5, Henstra teaches the CPB system of claim 3.
Henstra further teaches where the first acceptance aperture is an on-axis aperture and the second acceptance aperture is an off-axis aperture (See Fig. 1, with one aperture positioned on axis 101 and one aperture positioned off of axis 101).
Regarding claim 6, Henstra teaches the CPB system of claim 5.
Henstra further teaches wherein the second acceptance aperture has a size different from that of the first acceptance aperture so that a beam current associated with the second acceptance aperture is larger than a beam current associated with the first acceptance aperture (See Fig. 1, beams 105 and 106; [0012]; [0057]-[0058]).
Regarding claim 8, Henstra teaches the CPB system of claim 1.
Henstra further teaches wherein the beam selector includes at least one beam deflector or at least one CPB lens (See Fig. 1, items 107, 111, and/or 112).
Regarding claim 9, Henstra teaches the CPB optical system of claim 1.
Henstra further teaches further comprising:
a spectral disperser situated to receive the first CPB and the second CPB from the beam acceptance aperture plate and spectrally disperse at least one of the first CPB and the second CPB (See Fig. 1, item 107; Abstract; [0005]-[0009]; [0012]); and
a filter aperture plate that defines a filter aperture (See Fig. 1, item 108 having apertures 109 and 110; Examiner notes that plate 108 performs both filtering and blanking, and because there is nothing in the claims that requires these be separate elements, the plate 108 satisfies both requirements), wherein the spectral disperser is operable to direct the first CPB and a selected portion of the second CPB through the filter aperture (See Fig. 1, beams 105 and 106 are directed by lens 107 through item plate 108; [0057]; [0068]; Examiner notes that ‘operable to’ is interpreted as ‘capable of’) such that the second CPB has an associated spectral spread proximate the filter aperture plate ([0012]; [0057]), wherein the beam selector is operable to deflect the first CPB or the selected portion of the second CPB transmitted by the filter aperture to a workpiece (See Fig. 1, items 111 and 112; [0057]-[0058]; Examiner notes that ‘operable to’ is interpreted as ‘capable of’).
Regarding claim 10, Henstra teaches the CPB optical system of claim 9.
Henstra further teaches wherein the spectral disperser includes a CPB lens operable to spectrally disperse at least one of the first CPB and the second CPB based on chromatic aberration (See Fig. 1, item 107; Abstract; [0008]-[0009]; [0012]; [0040]; [0057]; [0068]).
Regarding claim 11, Henstra teaches the CPB optical system of claim 10.
Henstra further teaches further comprising the CPB source (See Fig. 1, item 102), wherein the first acceptance aperture of the beam acceptance aperture plate, the CPB lens, and the CPB source are situated on an optical axis (See Fig. 1, showing 102, the central aperture of 104, and lens 107 all on an optical axis, i.e., axis 101).
Regarding claim 15, Henstra teaches a method, comprising:
producing a first CPB and a second CPB propagating along a first axis and a second axis, respectively, wherein the first axis is different from the second axis (See Fig. 1, showing CPB source, i.e., charged particle emitting surface 102, generating a CPB, i.e., beam of charged particles 103, being directed to a beam acceptance aperture plate, i.e., beam limiting diaphragm 104, defining first and second apertures, i.e., apertures in 104 which are on and off axis 101, to produce first and second CPBs, i.e., axial beam 105, off-axis beam 106, directed along respective axes, i.e., 105 is on axis 101 while 106 is not; [0057]-[0058]; See also Figs. 3-5);
with a charged-particle-beam lens (See Fig. 1, particle-optical lens 107), directing the second CPB towards the first axis (See Fig. 1, off-axis beam 106 being directed by lens 107, toward axis 101; equivalently See Fig. 4, either of off-axis beams 106a or 106b being directed toward axis 101 by lens 107; See also Fig. 5; [0057]-[0058]; [0068]) and towards a filter aperture plate defining a filter aperture (See Fig. 1, diaphragm 108, having apertures 109, 110) so that spectral components of the second CPB are distributed at the filter aperture plate (Abstract; [0008]-[0009]; [0012]; [0040]; [0057]-[0058]);
at the filter aperture plate, selectively transmitting the first CPB or at least a selected spectral component of the second CPB through the filter aperture (See Fig. 1, energy selected beam 113; [0012]; [0057]-[0058]; See also Figs. 3-5; Examiner notes Henstra discloses transmitting the central beam as well); and
directing either the first CPB or the selected spectral component of the second CPB along the first axis (See Fig. 1, directing beam 106 along axis 101 after passing through aperture and forming energy selected beam 113; [0057]-[0058]; See also Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 16, Henstra teaches the method of claim 15.
Henstra further teaches further comprising directing the selected spectral component of the second CPB along the first axis with a beam selecting deflector (See Fig. 1, directing beam 106 to diaphragm 108 to form energy selected beam 113, which is subsequently directed along axis 101 with deflector 112; [0057]-[0058]; See also Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 17, Henstra teaches the method of claim 15.
Henstra further teaches wherein the distribution of spectral components of the second CPB at the filter aperture plate is based on chromatic aberration of the CPB lens that directs the second CPB towards the first axis and towards the filter aperture plate so that spectral components of the second CPB are distributed at the filter aperture plate (Abstract; [0005]-[0009]; [0012]; [0055]; [0057]-[0058]; Examiner interprets this requirement as being directed toward the physical means by which the distribution being ‘based on’ chromatic aberration).
Regarding claim 18, Henstra teaches the method of claim 15.
Henstra further teaches further comprising selectively attenuating either the first CPB or the selected spectral component of the second CPB at a blanking aperture plate (See Fig. 1, showing axial beam 105 attenuated at diaphragm 108; [0057]-[0058]; Examiner notes that plate 108 performs both filtering and blanking, and because there is nothing in the claims that requires these be separate elements, the plate 108 satisfies both requirements) and transmitting either the selected spectral component of the second CPB or the first CPB through a blanking aperture defined in the blanking aperture plate (See Fig. 1, showing axial beam 106 incident on diaphragm 108, wherein the energy selected beam 113 is transmitted via aperture 109, which transmits only the selected energy; [0057]-[0058]).
Regarding claim 19, Henstra teaches the method of claim 18.
Henstra further teaches further comprising situating an edge of the blanking aperture so that the selected spectral component of the second CPB is transmitted through the blanking aperture and unselected spectral components are attenuated at the blanking aperture plate (See Fig. 1, showing axial beam 106 incident on diaphragm 108, wherein the energy selected beam 113 is transmitted via aperture 109, which transmits only the selected energy; Abstract; [0002]; [0005]-[0009]; [0012]-[0013]; [0057]-[0058]).
Regarding claim 20, Henstra teaches the method of claim 15.
Henstra further teaches wherein the first axis is an optical axis (See Fig. 1, axis 101, which is interpreted as reading on ‘an optical axis’ because it has optical elements thereon).
Regarding claim 21, Henstra teaches the method of claim 15.
Henstra further teaches (See Fig. 1, showing apertures in 104 each on their own respective axis, each of the respective axes being interpreted as reading on ‘an optical axis’, because they each have optical elements thereon).
Regarding claim 22, Henstra teaches a method, comprising:
producing a first CPB and a second CPB propagating along a first axis and a second axis, respectively, wherein the first axis is different from the second axis (See Fig. 1, showing CPB source, i.e., charged particle emitting surface 102, generating a CPB, i.e., beam of charged particles 103, being directed to a beam acceptance aperture plate, i.e., beam limiting diaphragm 104, defining first and second apertures, i.e., apertures in 104 which are on and off axis 101, to produce first and second CPBs, i.e., axial beam 105, off-axis beam 106, directed along respective axes, i.e., 105 is on axis 101 while 106 is not; [0057]-[0058]; See also Figs. 3-5);
selectively directing the second CPB towards the first axis (See Fig. 1, off-axis beam 106 being directed by lens 107, toward axis 101; equivalently See Fig. 4, either of off-axis beams 106a or 106b being directed toward axis 101 by lens 107; See also Fig. 5; [0057]-[0058]; [0068]); and
at a blanking aperture plate that defines a blanking aperture situated on the first axis (See Fig. 1, diaphragm 108, having apertures 109, 110; See also Figs. 3-5), transmitting the second CPB through the blanking aperture towards a workpiece (See Fig. 1, energy selected beam 113; [0048]-[0052]; [0057]-[0058]; See also Figs. 3-5) and attenuating the first CPB (See Fig. 1, axial beam 105 being attenuated at diaphragm 108; [0057]-[0058]).
Regarding claim 23, Henstra teaches the method of claim 22.
Henstra further teaches wherein the second CPB is selectively directed towards the first axis by a first beam selector (See Fig. 1, item 111, which directs off-axis beam 106 toward axis 101; [0057]-[0058]; See also Figs. 3-5) and directed along the first axis by a second beam selector (See Fig. 1, item 112, which directs off-axis beam 106/energy selected beam 113 along axis 101; [0057]-[0058]; See also Figs. 3-5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henstra (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20110284763 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Henstra teaches the CPB system of claim 1.
Henstra further teaches wherein the beam acceptance aperture plate defines the first acceptance aperture, the second acceptance aperture, and a third acceptance aperture (See Fig. 4, item 104, having three apertures therein), the third acceptance aperture transmitting a third CPB (See Fig. 4, items 105, 106a, and 106b, each of which could be considered a ‘third’ CPB), wherein the beam selector is operable to selectively direct the second CPB (See Fig. 4, items 105, 106a, 106b; [0066]; Examiner notes that ‘operable to’ is interpreted as ‘capable of’).
Henstra does not explicitly teach wherein the beam selector is operable to selectively direct the second CPB and the third CPB to the workpiece through the blanking aperture (Emphasis added by Examiner), and instead discloses selectively directing only one beam through the blanking aperture.
However, Examiner first notes that the beam selector, under the BRI, need only be capable of directing both the second and third CPBs through the blanking aperture. Such functionality need not be explicitly disclosed so long as the disclosed structure is physically capable of performing the limitation and has sufficient disclosed functionality to achieve it, as the claim is directed toward a system.
In [0066], Henstra discusses the capability of forming plural off-axis beams, and selecting such beams to pass through the equivalent of the blanking aperture. Henstra further states “Preferably only a single beam leaves the source”, however, this is indicated as preferable, and not exclusory. Nevertheless, the deflector(s) are capable of arbitrarily deflecting the beams ([0057]-[0058]; [0064]-[0066]).
In [0068], Henstra also discusses energizing the lens 107 to choose which beams are focused at the equivalent of the blanking aperture, and an ordinarily skilled artisan would be reasonably apprised of techniques to control the focus and position of CPB beams traversing a CPB lens by appropriate current/voltage control thereof.
Henstra discloses in [0005]-[0008] that beams traversing particle optical components (i.e., such as lens 107) will have an energy spread, and that the width of the energy spread can be determined by the width of the aperture in the plate. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the beams which traverse such a lens with a chromatic aberration would have a continuous range of selectable energy values and how many of such selectable energy values that pass through an aperture in the downstream blanking plate would depend on the width of the aperture as discussed in Henstra. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the relative spacing of the beam acceptance apertures would determine the relative spacing of the resultant CPBs, and could readily adjust such spacing to achieve the desired beam spacing downstream thereof. Henstra also discusses using additional apertures in the blanking plate in order to select additional energy values in reference to Fig. 5.
As such, it is Examiner’s opinion that the combination of the above disclosures, in view of the ordinary knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan, is sufficient to disclose the limitation, as the deflector is capable of deflecting two beams through an aperture in the blanking aperture plate for an appropriately chosen blanking aperture size and aperture spacing for the acceptance aperture plate.
Accordingly, while Henstra does not explicitly teach wherein the beam selector is operable to selectively direct the second CPB and the third CPB to the workpiece through the blanking aperture (Emphasis added by Examiner), it discloses sufficient structure having sufficient functionality to achieve the limitation without structural modification or inventive activity, and thus, at the very least, 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 Henstra to explicitly include the capability of the beam selector to direct two beams through the blanking aperture.
Doing so would allow one additional flexibility to modify the beam characteristics (i.e., the resultant energy) at the workpiece.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henstra (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20110284763 A1) in view of Tanimoto (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20050072941 A1).
Examiner notes that Tanimoto is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 06/24/2025.
Regarding claim 12, Henstra teaches the CPB optical system of claim 11.
Henstra does not teach further comprising an actuator coupled to the filter aperture plate and operable to situate the filter aperture plate so that an edge of the filter aperture plate is situated to pass the selected portion of the second CPB through the filter aperture.
However, Examiner notes that ‘operable to’ is interpreted as meaning ‘capable of’, and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that one can equivalently move a beam on an aperture plate or move the aperture plate relative to a beam to achieve a desired relative positioning of the aperture and the beam, and would be reasonably apprised of conventional actuator technology that is well-represented in the art.
Henstra discloses achieving a relative positioning of an aperture and an incident beam via movement of the beam ([0057]-[0058]; [0063]-[0066]).
In other words, the limitation only differs from Henstra in the manner by which the relative positioning of the beam and the aperture is achieved, and the means required would be generally known to an ordinarily skilled artisan.
Nevertheless, Tanimoto teaches performing actuation of a beam blocking element (i.e., shutter 701; See Fig. 7, [0172]-[0176]) to be used with an equivalent of a beam acceptance aperture plate (i.e., aperture array 103; See Fig. 7) to block some portion of the beams which are split by the aperture array 103 ([0174]-[0175]), and to perform the positioning of the blocking element (i.e., shutter 701) with sufficient control by a shutter control circuit (i.e., shutter control circuit 702) to achieve position accuracy as high as the interval between beams discretely split by the aperture array ([0176]). Such an actuation would inherently require some actuator capable of achieving such movements and capable of being controlled by such a control circuit.
As such, it is Examiner’s opinion that 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 Henstra to include the actuation technology and control techniques achieving sufficiently high precision disclosed in Tanimoto in order to achieve further comprising an actuator coupled to the filter aperture plate and operable to situate the filter aperture plate so that an edge of the filter aperture plate is situated to pass the selected portion of the second CPB through the filter aperture, as an equivalent means of achieving the relative movement/positioning of the aperture plate and the beam.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements/techniques according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to achieve additional degrees of control to improve the system’s ability to select portions of the beam using prior art technologies disclosed as being used for the same purpose, albeit in an alternative embodiment, which is not required for the application of the actuation technology itself.
Regarding claim 13, Henstra teaches the CPB optical system of claim 11.
Henstra does not teach further comprising an actuator coupled to the filter aperture plate and operable to situate the filter aperture plate so that an edge of the filter aperture plate is situated so that an unselected portion of the second CPB is blocked by the filter aperture plate.
However, Examiner notes that ‘operable to’ is interpreted as meaning ‘capable of’, and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that one can equivalently move a beam on an aperture plate or move the aperture plate relative to a beam to achieve a desired relative positioning of the aperture and the beam, and would be reasonably apprised of conventional actuator technology that is well-represented in the art.
Henstra discloses achieving a relative positioning of an aperture plate and an incident beam via movement of the beam, including blocking unselected portions with the aperture plate ([0057]-[0058]; [0063]-[0066]).
In other words, the limitation only differs from Henstra in the manner by which the relative positioning of the beam and the aperture is achieved, and the means required would be generally known to an ordinarily skilled artisan.
Nevertheless, Tanimoto teaches performing actuation of a beam blocking element (i.e., shutter 701; See Fig. 7, [0172]-[0176]) to be used with an equivalent of a beam acceptance aperture plate (i.e., aperture array 103; See Fig. 7) to block some portion of the beams which are split by the aperture array 103 ([0174]-[0175]), and to perform the positioning of the blocking element (i.e., shutter 701) with sufficient control by a shutter control circuit (i.e., shutter control circuit 702) to achieve position accuracy as high as the interval between beams discretely split by the aperture array ([0176]). Such an actuation would inherently require some actuator capable of achieving such movements and capable of being controlled by such a control circuit.
As such, it is Examiner’s opinion that 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 Henstra to include the actuation technology and control techniques achieving sufficiently high precision disclosed in Tanimoto in order to achieve further comprising an actuator coupled to the filter aperture plate and operable to situate the filter aperture plate so that an edge of the filter aperture plate is situated so that an unselected portion of the second CPB is blocked by the filter aperture plate, as an equivalent means of achieving the relative movement/positioning of the aperture plate and the beam.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements/techniques according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to achieve additional degrees of control to improve the system’s ability to select portions of the beam using prior art technologies disclosed as being used for the same purpose, albeit in an alternative embodiment, which is not required for the application of the actuation technology itself.
Regarding claim 14, Henstra in view of Tanimoto teaches the CPB optical system of claim 12.
Henstra in view of Tanimoto further teaches further comprising a control system coupled to the actuator (Tanimoto: [0172]-[0176]) and operable to move the filter aperture plate to allow the selected portion of the second CPB to pass through the filter aperture (Henstra: [0057]-[0058]; [0063]-[0066]; Tanimoto: [0172]-[0176]; Combined as discussed in regard to Claim 12).
Examiner Note regarding Additional Prior Art
Examiner additionally notes that the prior art of record Maassen and Sed’a, each provided by Applicant via the IDS dated 06/24/2025, would each be sufficient to disclose each and every limitation of the above claims, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, either alone or in combination with Henstra, Tanimoto, or one another (depending on which claim(s)). However, as Henstra is the closest identified prior art for the presently understood claim scope, a detailed claim mapping using the above identified prior art is forgone for brevity.
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 CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 H 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights