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 .
Objected drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the antenna is configured to amplify the frequency of the electromagnetic interference to generate the signal as recited in claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, Second Paragraph
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 13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 13 is indefinite for reciting the limitation “the antenna is configured to amplify the frequency of the electromagnetic interference to generate the signal” in lines 1-2. How is the antenna that amplifies the frequency of the electromagnetic interference to generate the signal?
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 10, 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Basson et al. (11,276,545) in view of Connors et al. (2024/0402102) and Jevtic et al. (2016/0029472).
Basson et al. (11,276,545) discloses, in figs. 1-11, a charged particle instrument which includes
Regarding claim 10,
a chamber 302 supporting a sample 600 (see figs. 3-8);
a column 304 coupled to the chamber 302, the column 304 comprising a charged particle source configured to generate a charged particle beam traveling through the column 304 and into the chamber 302, wherein the charged particle beam is generated according to a scanning pattern (see figs. 2-8; abstract; col. 2, lines 8-11, lines 48-49; col. 3, lines 57-60; col. 5, lines 49-65; col. 6, lines 53-67); and
a controller 306 including an electronic processor 308 and a memory 307, and configured to align a start of each scan line forming the scanning pattern with zero crossings of the electromagnetic interference (see figs. 1, 2, 3, 10, 11; col. 2, lines 8-17; col. 3, line 54 to col. 4, line 20; col. 5, lines 22-65; col. 6, lines 53-67)
Basson et al. (11,276,545) discloses all the features as discussed above except an antenna configured to detect a frequency of electromagnetic interference generated by the charged particle instrument and a controller configured to receive, from the antenna, a signal indicative of the frequency of the electromagnetic interference as recited in claim 10; the frequency of the electromagnetic interference being greater than 1000 Hz as recited in claim 11; the antenna configured to amplify the frequency of the electromagnetic interference to generate the signal as recited in claim 13; and the controller configured to adjust a dwell time of the scanning pattern based on the frequency of the electromagnetic interference as recited in claim 14.
Using the antenna to detect a frequency of electromagnetic interference generated by the charged particle instrument; the controller to receive, from the antenna, a signal indicative of the frequency of the electromagnetic interference; the frequency of the electromagnetic interference being greater than 1000 Hz; and the controller to adjust a dwell time of the scanning pattern based on the frequency of the electromagnetic interference are considered to be obvious variation in design, since it is well known in the art as Connors et al. (2024/0402102) discloses, in figs. 1-9, a charged particle system for detecting and calibrating disturbances including the electromagnetic interference (see [0002], [0023]), which includes an interface device 906 including one or more antennas configured to detect (receive) and/or transmit signals indicating disturbances including a frequency of electromagnetic interference (see [0063]); a controller 150 including an electronic processor 902 and a memory 904, and configured to receive and/or to transmit the signal; the frequency of the electromagnetic interference being greater than 1000 Hz (see sample rate (Hz) 510 in fig. 5, [0039], [0042], [0050]); and the controller 150 configured to adjust a dwell time of the scanning pattern based on the frequency of the electromagnetic interference (see “disturbances including the electromagnetic interference” in abstract, [0004], [0006], [0019], [0033], [0034], [0037], [0039], [0069], [0084]), thus would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the antenna to detect a frequency of electromagnetic interference generated by the charged particle instrument; the controller to receive, from the antenna, a signal indicative of the frequency of the electromagnetic interference; the frequency of the electromagnetic interference being greater than 1000 Hz; and the controller to adjust a dwell time of the scanning pattern based on the frequency of the electromagnetic interference in the Basson et al. (11,276,545) charged particle instrument for correcting the scanning pattern.
Using the circuit coupled the antenna to amplify the frequency of the electromagnetic interference for generating the signal is also considered to be obvious variation in design, since it is well known in the art as Jevtic et al. (2016/0029472) discloses, in figs. 1-27b, a plasma generator using a radiofrequency power supply 18 including a circuit to amplify a signal of antennas 16 and 19 (see fig. 1, [0063]), thus would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the circuit to amplify a signal of antennas in the Basson et al. (11,276,545) charged particle instrument for transmitting the amplified signal.
Claims 1-9 and 15-20 are allowable.
Claim 12 is 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 Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art fails to disclose a charged particle instrument and/or method, which includes a controller configured to receive, from a sensing device detecting a measure of a frequency of electromagnetic interference generated via a pump, a signal indicative of the frequency of the electromagnetic interference, and to adjust a scanning pattern based on the frequency of the electromagnetic interference as recited in independent claim 1; receiving, from an antenna and with an electronic processor, a signal indicative of a frequency of electromagnetic interference, wherein the electromagnetic interference is generated by a pump configured to establish a vacuum within a chamber supporting a sample, and adjusting, with the electronic processor, a scanning pattern of a charged particle beam based on the frequency of the electromagnetic interference as recited in independent claim 15; or inserting a delay period into each scan line forming the scanning pattern based on the frequency of the electromagnetic interference as recited in dependent claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIET TUAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2479. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert H. Kim can be reached on 571-272-2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KIET T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881