DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 5, 11, 12 and 18 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.
Regarding claims 5, 11, 12 and 18, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
(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 1-5, 7, 9-11, 13-18 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) &(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kley (U.S. Patent No. 6,337,479, hereinafter Kley).
Note that while much of Kley regards generic objects, column 10, lines 15-21 specifically mention that the object 102 being repaired can itself be an spm probe and that material is added or removed to create the desired shape.
With respect to Claim 1, Kley discloses a method of refurbishing a probe for use in a scanning probe microscopy device, wherein the probe is a used or damaged probe, the probe including a cantilever and a probe tip, wherein the method comprises:
receiving the probe;
determining an existing probe structure of the probe and mapping the existing probe structure for obtaining existing probe structure data [measurement imaging; column 9, lines 44-56];
identifying, based on the existing probe structure data, a deviation from an original probe structure of the probe prior to said using or damaging thereof [column 9, lines 6-19 describe creating repair data based on comparing a generated image to a target image];
determining, based on the deviation, structural modification data indicative of a structural modification for modifying the probe [column 9, lines 6-19 the repair data]; and
modifying, in accordance with the structural modification data, the existing probe structure using a precision material deposition process, for performing said refurbishing of the probe [column 10, lines 15-21].
With respect to Claim 2, Kley discloses that the step of modifying the existing probe structure further comprises applying a precision material removal process, for performing said refurbishing of the probe. [column 10, lines 15-20 material can be removed]
With respect to Claim 3, Kley discloses that the step of identifying a deviation comprises: obtaining a probe structure design data indicative of an original probe structure design; and comparing the existing probe structure data with the probe structure design data for performing said identification. See column 9, lines 7-20, the target image is the original probe design and the generated image is the existing structure that needs repairing.
With respect to Claim 4, Kley discloses that the step of identifying a deviation comprises analyzing the existing probe structure data for estimating an expected original probe structure design, and comparing the existing probe structure data with the expected original probe structure design for performing said identification. See column 9, lines 7-18.
With respect to Claim 5, Kley discloses that said analyzing is performed by extrapolation of probe tip edges such as to determine an expected location of an apex of a probe tip in an expected original probe structure design. Column 9, lines 7-19 show comparing the entire spm probe image, which would include the tip edge.
With respect to Claim 7, Kley discloses that the step of determining the existing probe structure comprises: obtaining an image of the probe tip or the cantilever; and performing a pattern recognition algorithm for enabling said mapping of the existing probe structure for obtaining the existing probe structure data. Column 9, lines 7-19 generates an image of the spm probe, which includes a tip and cantilever and the repair data is based on a pattern identifying the difference of the damaged probe to that of the original.
With respect to Claim 9, Kley discloses that the step of determining the structural modification data comprises determining one or more parts of the probe to be added or removed during the step of modifying. Column 10, lines 15-21 “material can be added and/or removed”.
With respect to Claim 10, Kley discloses that the step of determining the one or more parts to be added or removed comprises determining a shape of said one or more parts to be added or removed. Column 9, lines 7-19, the repair data represents the areas that need to be added or removed.
With respect to Claim 11, Kley discloses that the step of determining the structural modification data comprises a step of determining a location or shape of a damage on the probe. column 9, lines 7-19, the repair data contains both the location and shape of the damage.
With respect to Claim 13, Kley discloses that the precision material deposition process is an electron beam deposition process. See column 53, lines 41-60.
With respect to Claim 14, Kley discloses a system for refurbishing a used or damaged probe for use in a scanning probe microscopy device, the probe including a cantilever and a probe tip [column 10, lines 14-20; spm probe], wherein the system comprises a probe capture unit [object loader; column 4, lines 57-60] for capturing the probe, an imaging unit [column 17, lines 10-13, the controller produces the image] for obtaining an image of the probe, and a controller [114; column 8, lines 55-65] cooperating with a memory or data storage [column 81, lines 55-66], wherein the controller is configured for performing the steps of:
determining an existing probe structure of the probe and mapping the existing probe structure for obtaining existing probe structure data [measurement imaging; column 9, lines 44-56];
identifying, based on the existing probe structure data, a deviation from an original probe structure of the probe prior to said using or damaging thereof [column 9, lines 6-19 describe creating repair data based on comparing a generated image to a target image];
determining, based on the deviation, structural modification data indicative of a structural modification for modifying the probe [column 9, lines 6-19 the repair data]; and
modifying, in accordance with the structural modification data, the existing probe structure using a precision material deposition process, for performing said refurbishing of the probe [column 10, lines 15-21]
wherein the controller is configured for cooperating with the precision material deposition unit or precision material removal unit for modifying, in accordance with the structural modification data, the existing probe structure by the precision material deposition unit, for performing said refurbishing of the probe [column 67, lines 31-38 show the controller controlling deposition, and column 44, lines 59-63 show controller 114 controlling removal].
With respect to Claim 15, Kley discloses that the system further comprises a precision material removal unit [342] configured for performing said structural modification, wherein the controller is further configured for cooperating with the precision material removal unit for modifying, in accordance with the structural modification data, the existing probe structure by the precision material removal unit, for performing said refurbishing of the probe. See columns 43 and 44, section under “particle removal structure
With respect to Claim 16, Kley discloses that for identifying the deviation, the controller is configured for: obtaining, from the memory or data storage, a probe structure design data indicative of an original probe structure design; and comparing the existing probe structure data with the probe structure design data for performing said identification. See column 9, lines 7-18.
With respect to Claim 17, Kley discloses that for identifying the deviation, the controller is configured for analyzing the existing probe structure data for estimating an expected original probe structure design, and for comparing the existing probe structure data with the expected original probe structure design for performing said identification. See column 9, lines 7-18.
With respect to Claim 18, Kley discloses that for performing said analyzing the controller is configured for extrapolation of probe tip edges such as to determine an expected location of an apex of a probe tip in an expected original probe structure design. Column 9, lines 7-19 show comparing the entire spm probe image, which would include the tip edge.
With respect to Claim 21, Kley discloses that the precision material deposition unit is an electron beam deposition unit [column 53, lines 41-60].
With respect to Claim 22, Kley discloses that the precision material removal unit is a focused ion beam unit. See column 62, lines 14-23.
With respect to Claim 23, Kley discloses a computer program product comprising instructions to cause a system to execute the steps of the method of claim 1. Column 10, lines 35-40.
With respect to Claim 24, Kley discloses a computer-readable medium having stored thereon the computer program of claim 23. Column 81, lines 55-65.
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 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kley in view of Young et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,705,814, hereinafter Young).
With respect to Claims 6 and 19, Kley doesn’t disclose where the test probes come from.
Young discloses that probes are known to be stored in cassettes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for Kley to have obtain the probe, from a probe chip cassette, a probe chip including the probe as this is a standard way to store probes.
Claim 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kley in view of McCord et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,992,7284, hereinafter McCord).
With respect to Claims 8 and 20, Kley does not disclose that the image is obtained using an optical microscope or a scanning electron microscope.
McCord discloses using an optical microscope to image a spm probe. See column 2, lines 15-22.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that Kley would use any known means to obtain the image of the probe needing repair, including by using an optical microscope.
Allowable Subject Matter
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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Kley only shows adding and removing to make a probe, or repair a probe, not to repair the probe, and then further modify the probe. This would essentially change the function of the probe to be used for other purposes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX T DEVITO whose telephone number is (571)270-7551. The examiner can normally be reached 12pm- 8 pm EST M-S.
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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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.
/ALEX T DEVITO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855