DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11/14/2023 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because US Pat 9,275,823 and US PGPub 2014/0054267 entries have both been duplicated and already considered earlier in the disclosure statement. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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 16 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.
Claim 16 recites two sentences. MPEP 608.01(m) states: “While there is no set statutory form for claims, the present Office practice is to insist that each claim must be the object of a sentence starting with "I (or we) claim," "The invention claimed is" (or the equivalent).” In this action, the second sentence of claim 16 will be given no patentable weight.
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 1-8 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chandler (US Pat. 10,103,008, hereinafter Chandler).
Regarding claim 1, Chandler discloses a charged particle beam apparatus (micromachining performed by directing beams, such as ion beams, electron beams, laser beams, see col. 1, lines 12-14), comprising:
a vacuum chamber defined by a vacuum enclosure (FIB system 411 comprises an evacuated housing that connects to a lower sample vacuum chamber 426, see col. 7, lines 27-29);
at least one CPB objective lens situated in the vacuum chamber and operable to produce an image of a workpiece or to direct a processing CPB to the workpiece to remove material from or add material to the workpiece with the workpiece situated in the vacuum chamber (objective lens 458 for focusing an electron beam 443 (e.g. charged particle beam) to a specimen to image the surface with the SEM 441, see col. 7, lines 3-12; alternatively, ion beam 418 is directed to a work piece 422 with focusing element 417 and deflection element 420, see col. 7, lines 27-35; for modifying the work piece by ion milling, etching, material deposition, or for imaging the work piece 422, see col. 8, lines 10-21); and
a gas inlet and a gas outlet situated to direct a gas flow to the workpiece and receive a gas flow from the workpiece, respectively (gas delivery system 446 extends into lower chamber 426 for introducing and directing a gaseous vapor toward work piece 422, see col. 8, lines 45-51; gas in the lower sample vacuum chamber 426 is evacuated using pumping system 430, which provides a vacuum pressure, even in the presence of a precursor gas, see col. 7, lines 49-58).
Regarding claim 2, Chandler discloses the at least one CPB objective lens is situated to produce an image of the workpiece and to direct the processing CPB to the workpiece to remove material from or add material to the workpiece (objective lens 458 for focusing an electron beam 443 (e.g. charged particle beam) to a specimen to image the surface with the SEM 441, see col. 7, lines 3-12; ion beam 418 is directed to a work piece 422 with focusing element 417 and deflection element 420, see col. 7, lines 27-35; for modifying the work piece by ion milling, etching, material deposition, or for imaging the work piece 422, see col. 8, lines 10-21).
Regarding claim 3, Chandler discloses the at least one CPB objective lens includes a first CPB lens situated to produce an image of the workpiece and a second CPB lens situated to direct the processing CPB the workpiece to remove material from or add material to the workpiece (objective lens 458 for focusing an electron beam 443 (e.g. charged particle beam) to a specimen to image the surface with the SEM 441, see col. 7, lines 3-12; ion beam 418 is directed to a work piece 422 with focusing element 417 and deflection element 420, see col. 7, lines 27-35; for modifying the work piece by ion milling, etching, material deposition, or for imaging the work piece 422, see col. 8, lines 10-21).
Regarding claim 4, Chandler discloses the first CPB produces the image of the workpiece in response to an electron beam and the processing CPB directed to the workpiece by the second CPB lens is an ion beam (objective lens 458 for focusing an electron beam 443 (e.g. charged particle beam) to a specimen to image the surface with the SEM 441, see col. 7, lines 3-12; ion beam 418 is directed to a work piece 422 with focusing element 417 and deflection element 420, see col. 7, lines 27-35; for modifying the work piece by ion milling, etching, material deposition, or for imaging the work piece 422, see col. 8, lines 10-21).
Regarding claim 5, Chandler discloses an optical system situated to direct a processing optical beam to the workpiece as situated in the vacuum chamber to remove material from or add material to the workpiece (ion beam 418 is directed to a work piece 422 with focusing element 417 and deflection element 420, see col. 7, lines 27-35; for modifying the work piece by ion milling, etching, material deposition, or for imaging the work piece 422, see col. 8, lines 10-21; FIB system 411 comprises an evacuated housing that connects to a lower sample vacuum chamber 425, see col. 7, lines 27-29).
Regarding claim 6, Chandler discloses the optical system includes at least one lens situated to produce an image of the workpiece as situated in the vacuum chamber (objective lens 458 for focusing an electron beam 443 (e.g. charged particle beam) to a specimen to image the surface with the SEM 441, see col. 7, lines 3-12; lower sample vacuum chamber 426 is evacuated using turbomolecular and mechanical pumping system 430, see col. 7, lines 50-58).
Regarding claim 7, Chandler discloses the optical system includes an optical element situated in an optical beam path to the workpiece, the optical elect having at least one surface situated to be exposed to an interior of the vacuum chamber (ion beam 418 is directed to a work piece 422 with focusing element 417 and deflection element 420, see col. 7, lines 27-35; for modifying the work piece by ion milling, etching, material deposition, or for imaging the work piece 422, see col. 8, lines 10-21; FIB system 411 comprises an evacuated housing that connects to a lower sample vacuum chamber 425, see col. 7, lines 27-29).
Regarding claim 8, Chandler discloses the optical element is an optical lens (ion beam 418 is directed to a work piece 422 with focusing element 417 and deflection element 420, see col. 7, lines 27-35).
Regarding claim 14, Chandler discloses a method (micromachining performed by directing beams, such as ion beams, electron beams, laser beams, see col. 1, lines 12-14), comprising:
situating a workpiece in a vacuum chamber at a first pressure (work piece 422 is positioned in a lower sample vacuum chamber 425, see Fig. 1 and col. 7, lines 27-29; held at a reduced pressure, see col. 7, lines 53-58);
exposing the workpiece as situated in the vacuum chamber at the first pressure to a first processing beam (ion beam 418 is directed to a work piece 422 with focusing element 417 and deflection element 420, see col. 7, lines 27-35; for modifying the work piece by ion milling, etching, material deposition, or for imaging the work piece 422, see col. 8, lines 10-21; FIB system 411 comprises an evacuated housing that connects to a lower sample vacuum chamber 425, see col. 7, lines 27-29); and
during the exposing the workpiece at the first pressure, directing a gas flow to a workpiece surface and withdrawing a gas flow from the workpiece (gas delivery system 446 extends into lower chamber 426 for introducing and directing a gaseous vapor toward work piece 422, see col. 8, lines 45-51; gas in the lower sample vacuum chamber 426 is evacuated using pumping system 430, which provides a vacuum pressure, even in the presence of a precursor gas, see col. 7, lines 49-58).
Regarding claim 15, Chandler discloses the first pressure is a low vacuum pressure (the instant application defines “low vacuum pressure” to be any pressure higher than 2 Pa (i.e. 1x10-2 mbar conversion equivalence), see paragraph [0017] of the instant application. In light of the instant specification, Chandler discloses the vacuum pressure to be maintained at 1x10-5 mbar, see col. 7, lines 50-58; which is lower vacuum pressure than the converted 2 Pa pressure).
Regarding claim 16, Chandler discloses the gas clow consists essentially of one or more of an organic gas and a halogen-containing gas (compounds containing an acid halide functional group (e.g. halogen-containing compound) can be used as a precursor gas for beam-induced etching, including acid chloride or an acid bromide (see col. 3, lines 60-63; gas source may be a source of, for example, an oxalyl chloride, oxalyl bromide, acetyl chloride or acetyl bromide, see col. 8, lines 45-49. Oxalyl chloride, oxalyl bromide, acetyl chloride and acetyl bromide are all, by definition, organic compounds as well as containing a halide functional group (e.g. halogen-containing compound like chlorine or bromine)).
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 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandler in view of Straw (US Pat. 9,216,475, hereinafter Straw).
Regarding claim 9, Chandler fails to disclose a shutter situated between the at least one CPB objective lens and the workpiece, and operable to shield the CPB objective lens from contamination produced by the workpiece in response to processing.
Straw discloses a protective screen assembly 400 situated between the beam column and the sample 320 to prevent debris buildup (see Fig. 3C and col. 5, lines 42-55). Straw teaches a motor 460 that can be used to rotate the transparent screen 451 so the window where the beam passes through can remain free of debris (see col. 6, lines 27-45).
Straw modifies Chandler by suggesting providing a protective screen assembly between the sample and the beam column.
Since both inventions are drawn to charged particle beam processing devices, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Chandler by providing a protective screen assembly between the sample and the beam column for the purpose of preventing debris buildup so the intensity of the beam is maintained as taught by Straw.
Regarding claim 10, Chandler discloses the gas inlet and gas outlet are coupled to an inlet valve and an outlet valve, respectively, and further comprising a controller coupled to variably regulate at least one of the inlet valve and the outlet valve (gas delivery system 446 introduces a gas toward the work piece 422, see col. 8, lines 49-51; pumping system 430 provides a vacuum in the presence of a gas, see col. 7, lines 50-58; vapor pressures of the gas are introduced by a needle valve or a pulse-width-modulated microvalve, see col. 8-9, lines 57-2; system controller 419 controls operations of the system 410, see col. 9, lines 3-4).
Regarding claim 11, Chandler discloses a venting valve, wherein the controller is operable to establish a pressure in the vacuum enclosure by controlling the venting valve (pumping system 430 provides a vacuum in the presence of a gas, see col. 7, lines 50-58; system controller 419 controls operations of the system 410, see col. 9, lines 3-4).
Regarding claim 12, Chandler discloses the controller is operable to establish a low vacuum pressure in the vacuum enclosure by actuating a venting valve to admit a background gas, actuating the inlet valve to direct the gas flow to the workpiece via the gas inlet, and actuating the outlet valve to establish the gas flow from gas inlet to gas outlet above the workpiece (system controller 419 controls operations of the system 410, see col. 9, lines 3-4; pumping system 430 provides a vacuum in the presence of a gas to pump the unused gas out of the system, see col. 7, lines 50-58; the instant application defines “low vacuum pressure” to be any pressure higher than 2 Pa (i.e. 1x10-2 mbar conversion equivalence), see paragraph [0017] of the instant application. In light of the instant specification, Chandler discloses the vacuum pressure to be maintained at 1x10-5 mbar, see col. 7, lines 50-58; which is lower vacuum pressure than the converted 2 Pa pressure; gas delivery system 446 introduces a gas toward the work piece 422, see col. 8, lines 49-51; vapor pressures of the gas are introduced by a needle valve or a pulse-width-modulated microvalve, see col. 8-9, lines 57-2).
Regarding claim 13, Chandler discloses the controller is operable to establish a high vacuum pressure in the vacuum enclosure by actuating of a venting valve and actuate the inlet valve to terminate the gas flow to the workpiece via the gas inlet and actuate the outlet valve to terminate the receiving of the gas flow from the workpiece (system controller 419 controls operations of the system 410, see col. 9, lines 3-4; pumping system 430 provides a vacuum in the system, see col. 7, lines 50-58; the instant application defines “high vacuum pressure” to be any pressure lower than 0.001 Pa (i.e. 1x10-5 mbar conversion equivalence), see paragraph [0017] of the instant application. In light of the instant specification, Chandler discloses the vacuum pressure to be maintained at 7x10-4 mbar, see col. 7, lines 50-58; which is lower vacuum pressure than the converted 0.001 Pa pressure; vapor pressures of the gas are introduced by a needle valve or a pulse-width-modulated microvalve, see col. 8-9, lines 57-2).
Claims 17-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandler.
Claim 17, Chandler does not explicitly disclose the method of after exposing at the first pressure with the workpiece situated in the vacuum chamber, establishing a second pressure in the vacuum chamber and discontinuing the directing a gas flow to the workpiece surface and the withdrawing the gas from the workpiece; and exposing the workpiece in the vacuum chamber to a second processing beam.
However, Chandler teaches the FIB system 411 directs an ion beam 418 toward the work piece 422 (see col. 7, lines 27-35), where the work piece 422 is in a vacuum chamber at a reduced pressure (see col. 7, lines 49-58). Chandler further teaches the gas is selectively introduced into the device (if a precursor gas is used, see col. 7, lines 49-58; and evacuated from the pumping system 430, see col. 7, lines 49-58). Chandler teaches that the gas increases sputtering rates (see col. 1, lines 31-41).
It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to selectively supply a gas to the workpiece and expose the workpiece to a processing beam as desired for the purpose of increasing the sputtering rate process as desired as taught by Chandler.
Regarding claim 18, Chandler discloses the second pressure is a high vacuum pressure (the instant application defines “high vacuum pressure” to be any pressure lower than 0.001 Pa (i.e. 1x10-5 mbar conversion equivalence), see paragraph [0017] of the instant application. In light of the instant specification, Chandler discloses the vacuum pressure to be maintained at 7x10-4 mbar, see col. 7, lines 50-58; which is lower vacuum pressure than the converted 0.001 Pa pressure).
Regarding claim 19, Chandler discloses the first processing beam is an optical beam operating to produce a first processing rate (FIB system 411 directs a focused ion beam 418 toward work piece 422, see col. 7, lines 27-35; system 410 includes a source of precursor gas, see col. 8, lines 45-51; the precursor gas reacts to result in a substantial increase in sputtering rates, see col. 1, lines 31-41), and the second processing beam is the optical beam operating to produce a second processing rate (FIB system 411 directs a focused ion beam 418 toward work piece 422, see col. 7, lines 27-35; system 410 includes a source of precursor gas, see col. 8, lines 45-51; absence of the precursor gas allows for a different sputter rate, see col. 1, lines 31-41), wherein the first processing rate is greater than the second processing rate (directing a focused ion beam 418 toward work piece 422, see col. 7, lines 27-35; in the presence of a precursor gas increases sputter rate, see col. 1, lines 31-41).
Regarding claim 21, Chandler discloses the first processing beam and the second processing beam is a laser beam (see col. 9, lines 19-23).
Regarding claim 22, Chandler discloses a method of processing a workpiece (micromachining performed by directing beams, such as ion beams, electron beams, laser beams, see col. 1, lines 12-14), comprising:
processing the workpiece at a first rate in a vacuum chamber in a lower vacuum environment while directing a gas flow to the workpiece and suctioning debris from the workpiece (FIB system 411 directs a focused ion beam 418 toward work piece 422, see col. 7, lines 27-35; system 410 includes a source of precursor gas, see col. 8, lines 45-51; the precursor gas reacts to result in a substantial increase in sputtering rates, see col. 1, lines 31-41; the sample vacuum chamber 426 is held at a pressure in the presence of a gas, see col. 7, lines 50-58; and sputtered material from the reaction of the precursor gas, see col. 1, lines 31-41; the instant application defines “low vacuum pressure” to be any pressure higher than 2 Pa (i.e. 1x10-2 mbar conversion equivalence), see paragraph [0017] of the instant application. In light of the instant specification, Chandler discloses the vacuum pressure to be maintained at 1x10-5 mbar, see col. 7, lines 50-58; which is lower vacuum pressure than the converted 2 Pa pressure);
processing the workpiece in the vacuum chamber at a second rate in a high vacuum environment without directing a gas flow to the workpiece and suctioning debris from the workpiece (FIB system 411 directs a focused ion beam 418 toward work piece 422, see col. 7, lines 27-35; system 410 includes a source of precursor gas, see col. 8, lines 45-51; absence of the precursor gas allows for a different sputter rate, see col. 1, lines 31-41; and sputtered material from the ion beam, see col. 1, lines 31-41; the instant application defines “high vacuum pressure” to be any pressure lower than 0.001 Pa (i.e. 1x10-5 mbar conversion equivalence), see paragraph [0017] of the instant application. In light of the instant specification, Chandler discloses the vacuum pressure to be maintained at 7x10-4 mbar, see col. 7, lines 50-58; which is lower vacuum pressure than the converted 0.001 Pa pressure), wherein the first rate is associated with greater production of debris or surface contamination than the second rate (directing a focused ion beam 418 toward work piece 422, see col. 7, lines 27-35; in the presence of a precursor gas increases sputter rate, see col. 1, lines 31-41); and
after the processing, imaging the workpiece in the vacuum chamber (focusing an electron beam 443 (e.g. charged particle beam) to a specimen to image the surface with the SEM 441, see col. 7, lines 3-12).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandler in view of Castagna et al. (US Pat. 9,070,533, hereinafter Castagna).
Regarding claim 20, Chandler fails to disclose the first processing beam and the second processing beam are produced by a common optical beam source.
Castagna discloses a charged particle beam, such as an electron beam or ion beam, can be used to induce a chemical reaction to etch a sample or to deposit material onto a sample (see col. 2, lines 55-62). Castagna further teaches imaging of the sample using gas cascade amplification of secondary electrons and allow moist samples to be process in a low vacuum environment (see col. 4, lines 17-26). Castagna further teaches other processes may be used by the device (see col. 9, lines 4-9). Castagna teaches all the processes can be done by the electron beam 108 from a common source to a sample 110 (see col. 6-7, lines 65-5).
Castagna modifies Chandler by suggesting a singular source to provide a charged particle beam for multiple processes.
Since both inventions are drawn to charged particle processing devices, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Chandler by providing a singular source to provide a charged particle beam for multiple processes for the purpose of conserving space and reducing the of size of the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANWAY CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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.
Hanway Chang
/HC/ Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881