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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 12, 13, 19, and 20 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 12 recites that “the container is reticle-shaped”. It is unclear what shape is envisioned, as a reticle may have any number of different shapes. Claim 13 recites that “the substrate is wafer-shaped”. It is unclear what shape is envisioned, as a wafer may have any number of different shapes. Claim 19 recites that “the container is reticle-shaped”. It is unclear what shape is envisioned, as a reticle may have any number of different shapes. Claim 20 recites that “the substrate is wafer-shaped”. It is unclear what shape is envisioned, as a wafer may have any number of different shapes. 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. Claim (s) 1, 11, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2009/0002695 in view of Yaguchi et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2012/0212583 . Regarding claim 1, Saito discloses a n apparatus, comprising: a substrate 2 ; and optics 1 , mechanically coupled to the substrate 2 ( “ The sample holder 2 holds the sample 1 ” [0046] ), to direct light upward away from the substrate into an aperture of a scanning electron microscope (SEM) ( “light reflected on the sample 1 is introduced through the microscope tube 40a” [0067] ). However, although Saito discloses that “the sample 1 is transferred from the load lock chamber to the sample holder 2 provided in the vacuum chamber 13” [0066] , there is no explicit disclosure that both the optics and substrate are loadable and unloadable, together, into the SEM and from the SEM through a load lock of the SEM. Yaguchi discloses an electron microscopy system ( “The present invention relates to a sample holder used for electron microscopes and FIB processing apparatuses” [0001] ) wherein “the sample holder 1 with the sample 6 attached thereto is inserted. A loadlock system not illustrated is provided so as to enable removal and insertion of the sample holder 1 from/to the sample chamber while maintaining a vacuum state of the sample chamber” [0052] “ The sample holder 1 taken out from the FIB apparatus 16 is inserted in the sample pre-evacuation chamber 47 of the electron microscope 29 while hermetically sealing the vicinity of the sample 6 by the covering unit 9 ” [0057] . It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saito with the sample holder of Yaguchi in order to simplify operation of an electron microscopy system by transferring a sample between multiple chambers without realigning a sample on a holder. Regarding claim 11, the only disclosed light sources in Saito are light sources 51 , 21 , or 7 , which are separate from the apparatus of the substrate 2 and optics 1 . Therefore, Saito illustrates in figure 1 that the apparatus does not include a light source to generate the light. Regarding claim 12, Saito discloses a container 13 that contains the optics 1 , wherein: the container has the shape illustrated in figure 1 ; the substrate 2 is a bottom surface of the container; the optics 1 are disposed within the container 13 ; and the container has a top opening 131 to allow the optics 1 to direct the light upward into the aperture (as illustrated in figure 1) . Regarding claim 13, Saito discloses that the optics 1 are mounted on top of the substrate (as illustrated in figure 1). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-10 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. Regarding claim 2; Saito et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2009/0002695 discloses an apparatus, comprising: a substrate 2 ; and optics 1 , mechanically coupled to the substrate 2 ( “The sample holder 2 holds the sample 1” [0046] ), to direct light upward away from the substrate into an aperture of a scanning electron microscope (SEM) ( “light reflected on the sample 1 is introduced through the microscope tube 40a” [0067] ). However, the only reflector of Saito that reflects light upward away from the substrate is the sample 1. Therefore, Saito does not disclose optics , mechanically coupled to the substrate , compris ing : a mirror to direct the light upward away from the substrate; and a lens to guide the light to the mirror along an optical path substantially parallel to the substrate. Iwabuchi et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2002/0024021 discloses a n apparatus, comprising: a substrate 12 ; and optics 85 , mechanically coupled to the substrate (as illustrated in figure 17); wherein the optics comprise: a mirror 85 . However, the mirrors of Iwabuchi are not configured to direct light upward away from the substrate into an aperture of a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Nishikata et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2007/0023655 discloses a n apparatus, comprising: a substrate 1 ; and optics 3 , to direct light upward away from the substrate into an aperture 321 of a scanning electron microscope (SEM) ( “an electron microscope” [0003] ). However, Nishikata does not disclose that optics 3 are mechanically coupled to the substrate 1 . The prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the other claim limitations, a n apparatus, comprising: a substrate; and optics, mechanically coupled to the substrate, to direct light upward away from the substrate into an aperture of a scanning electron microscope (SEM); wherein the apparatus is loadable into the SEM and unloadable from the SEM through a load lock of the SEM ; wherein the optics comprise: a mirror to direct the light upward away from the substrate; and a lens to guide the light to the mirror along an optical path substantially parallel to the substrate. Regarding claims 3-10; these claims depend, either directly or indirectly, upon claim 2. Claims 14-18 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding independent claim 14; Saito et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2009/0002695 discloses a method, comprising: loading an apparatus into a scanning electron microscope (SEM) through a load lock of the SEM and onto a stage of the SEM ( “the sample 1 is transferred from the load lock chamber to the sample holder 2 provided in the vacuum chamber 13” [0066] ), the apparatus comprising: a substrate 2 ; and optics 1 , mechanically coupled to the substrate 2 , to direct light upward away from the substrate ( “light reflected on the sample 1 is introduced through the microscope tube 40a” [0067] ) . However, Saito does not disclose using the optics to direct the light upward through an aperture of the SEM onto an electron detector in the SEM. Aida U.S. PGPUB No. 2021/0207945 discloses a scanning electron microscope ( [0105] ) for reflecting light off of a specimen ( “an imaging element that detects reflected light reflected by the specimen” [Abstract] ). However, although Aida discloses that “there is a risk that the reflected electron detector may detect the light from the light source 210” [0102] , it is clear that it would be undesirable to direct light to the electron detector, and Aida does not disclose using the optics to direct the light upward through an aperture of the SEM onto an electron detector in the SEM. The prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the other claim limitations, a method, comprising: using optics mechanically coupled to a substrate to direct light upward through an aperture of an SEM onto an electron detector in the SEM ; wherein the apparatus comprising the optics and the substrate is loaded through a load lock of the SEM onto a stage of the SEM . Regarding claims 15-18; these claims are allowable at least for their dependence, either directly or indirectly, upon independent claim 14. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JASON L MCCORMACK whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1489 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th 7:00AM-5:00PM 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Robert Kim can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /JASON L MCCORMACK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2881