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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species XXIX-acrylic acid in the reply filed on December 16, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 3-5 and 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species and invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Note. Applicant elected acrylic acid and acrylic acid is not a biphenyl.
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 2 and 6 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation, “the system of claim 1, wherein the hydrocarbon is not included in a Substance Priority List compiled by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry of the United States Centers for Disease Control and publicly available as of 2023.” which is indefinite. Applicant has not provided a Substance Priority List so the metes and bounds of claim 2 are unclear. In other words, the type of hydrocarbon cannot be determined from the claim.
Therefore, claim 2 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 6 recites the limitation, “wherein the hydrocarbon is selected from a group consisting of: methane, ethylene, propane, styrene, camphor, menthol, benzoic acid, cyclohexane, cyclohexanone, cyanononane, acetone, methanol, nitromethane, acetonitrile, formic acid, acetic acid, propionic acid, and acrylic acid.” which is indefinite. A hydrocarbon is an organic compound made up of only hydrogen and carbon. Thus, it’s unclear how “camphor, menthol, benzoic acid, cyclohexanone, cyanononane, acetone, methanol, nitromethane, acetonitrile, formic acid, acetic acid, propionic acid, and acrylic acid” are hydrocarbons when they have additional elements with the hydrogen and carbon. In other words, they are not hydrocarbons.
Therefore, claim 6 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
For purposes of examination, an organic compound having additional elements with the hydrogen and carbon will be searched and used as a hydrocarbon. However, correction to the claims with the term “hydrocarbon” is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rue et al. (U.S. 2018/0166272).
Referring to Figure 5 and paragraphs [0048]-[0058], Rue et al. disclose a charged particle beam system, comprising: a vacuum chamber 226 (par.[0050]); a charged particle beam source 210, 241, operably coupled with the vacuum chamber and including an emitter section 252 and a column section 254, 256, 258, 260, the charged particle beam source 241 being configured to generate a beam of charged particles and to direct the beam of charged particles into the vacuum chamber (par.[0053]); and a precursor source 246, operably coupled with the vacuum chamber and configured to direct a gas stream comprising a precursor into the vacuum chamber (par.[0056]), wherein the precursor comprises a hydrocarbon having a vapor pressure greater than about 1.6x104 mbar at about 293 K and about 101.3 kPa, and wherein the hydrocarbon is not naphthalene (pars.[0027]-[0029]).
With respect to claim 2, the system of Rue et al. further includes wherein the hydrocarbon is not included in a Substance Priority List compiled by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry of the United States Centers for Disease Control and publicly available as of 2023 (pars.[0027]-[0029]).
With respect to claim 7, the system of Rue et al. further includes wherein the precursor reaches a substantially equal or greater equilibrium surface coverage, 0, relative to that of naphthalene at a given set of environmental conditions in the vacuum chamber and for a given sample, with 0 being defined using a relevant adsorption isotherm model (i.e. hydrocarbon, par.[0027]).
With respect to claim 8, the system of Rue et al. further includes wherein the precursor is characterized by a substantially equal or greater admolecule surface mobility, relative to that of naphthalene at a given set of environmental conditions in the vacuum chamber and for a given sample (i.e. hydrocarbon, pars.[0027]).
With respect to claim 9, the system of Rue et al. further comprising a sample stage 224, disposed in the vacuum chamber and defining a locus in the vacuum chamber such that the charged particle beam source and the precursor source are configured to direct the beam of charged particles and the gas stream, respectively, toward the locus (Fig. 7 and par.[0050]).
With respect to claim 10, the system of Rue et al. further comprising: control circuitry 219, operably coupled with the charged particle beam source and the precursor source; and one or more non-transitory machine-readable storage media, operably coupled with the control circuitry and storing instructions that, when executed by the system, cause the system to perform operations comprising: directing the gas stream into the vacuum chamber toward a locus defined in the vacuum chamber (par.[0056]-[0057], i.e. controller 210 controls gas delivery); and irradiating a region including the locus using the beam of charged particles (par.[0057], i.e. controller 210 controls ion beam 218 and electron beam 243).
With respect to claim 11, the system of Rue et al. further includes wherein irradiating the region comprises directing a current density from about 0.1 pA/ to about 300 pA/ onto a surface positioned substantially at the locus (pars.[0045]-[0046]-i.e. current density between 5-20 pA/mm2).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rue et al. (U.S. 2018/0166272) in view of Umemura (U.S. 4,713,258).
The teachings of Rue et al. have been discussed above.
Rue et al. is silent on the hydrocarbon is selected from a group consisting of acrylic acid.
Referring to column 3, lines 42-65, Umemura teach a charged particle beam system wherein acrylic acid is used in order to provide better quality ultrafine patterns on a substrate. Therefore, 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 the apparatus of Rue et al. with the hydrocarbon is selected from a group consisting of acrylic acid as taught by Umemura in order to provide better quality ultrafine patterns on a substrate.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rue et al. (U.S. 2018/0166272) in view of Nakamura et al. (U.S. 5,429,730) and Arjavac et al. (U.S. 6,926,935).
The teachings of Rue et al. have been discussed above.
Rue et al. is silent on wherein the operations further comprise heating the precursor at a temperature from about 273 K to about 385 K.
Referring to column 6, lines 21-24, Nakamura et al. teach a charged particle beam system wherein a hydrocarbon precursor decomposes at 298.15 K. Referring to column 4, line 63-column 5, line 11, Arjavac et al. teach a charged particle beam system wherein it is conventionally known in the art to heat the temperature of the precursor gas in order to provide a suitable stream of molecules for beam-induced reactions to form particulate material deposited onto the substrate. Therefore, 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 the apparatus of Rue et al. with the operations further comprise heating the precursor at a temperature from about 273 K to about 385 K as taught by Nakamura et al. and Arjavac et al. in order to provide a suitable stream of molecules for beam-induced reactions to form particulate material for substrate processing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Corkum et al.’661 teach a laser beam using acrylic acid precursor. Martin et al.’380, Bishop et al.’814, Chandler’589, and Franco et al.’558 teach a charged particle beam system. Morikawa et al.’789, Tabat’627, Smith et al.’812, Havermans et al.’349, and Marsh’423 teach a charged particle beam system using a hydrocarbon.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michelle CROWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-1432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-6:00pm.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/Michelle CROWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716